romans holiday

Money itself is an idea. Many things can be used as [function as] money. These are the forms we call currencies. The question today should be which currency is the strongest. Gold is the strongest because it best symbolizes, in our culture, the idea of money.

No, no, no.... its relative stability is more assuring - considering the problem is the uncertainty, and hence the volatility, of the monetary value of all else. Gold is not a monetary freak of the market, but the strongest symbol of money.

Silver back below 30. Just want to see one more good push lower!!

As in "back to the future" kind of thing?

Were you meaning to say "pseudo-science" line of thinking? As to philosophy, it's always going to supercede science. This is why they study philosophy of science in universities [not to mention the best scientific brains], and not science of philosophy. Philosophy interrogates science: what exactly are its methods.... what do its theories mean... do they describe reality or are they more instruments/ models...is it about truth, or power... or art? Good philosophy rather than being "anti-science", looks to contextualize it, or qualify it.... science is after all our science... it's always a human science. The trouble today is that science has tended to take on the inflated proportions of a cult, where it monopolizes knowledge, where valid knowledge is not seen to exist outside of science. This is also a kind of close-mindedness where reality is thought to be understood only in technical or theoretical terms. The relation between philosophy and science is an important one. Even though philosophy questions the more dogmatic assumptions of a popularized science, it can also in turn provide a firm basis for science. Rational criticism need not entail that science is seen solely in terms of power [whether over our environment or ourselves]. Rather, criticism subverts the potential for that. The issue here is one of freedom, and primarily freedom of the imagination..... and it is a species of this, the scientific imagination, which is able to construct scientific models which provide a handle on the world. These models "work", with the power of technology, insofar as they analogically correlate with a material reality. It really comes down to what open-mindedness practically means.

The continued polarization on gold amazes me. On the one side you have the "gold is the only true/ natural money" crowd, and on the other "gold is only a commodity". The one thing they hold in common is that gold's an inflation hedge.... it is unthinkable for the first crowd that [hyper] inflation will not play out, and though the second crowd thinks deflation is possible, or probable, they tend to then assume that the price of gold must go down in this scenario. The pramatic and balanced approach is to think of gold just as a currency.... the rise in price simply reflects the appreciation of a currency [a process of monetization by the market]. Even if at times gold and the dollar will move contrary to each other... in the aggregate they may both appreciate as the most desired forms of liquidity. Exter's liquidity pyramid portrays the dynamic well, where the dollar will appreciate against assets [and other fiat currencies] even as gold continues to appreciate against the dollar. More than mutual hedges, the dollar and gold could even be considered complemetary "investments" [or disinvestments]. It's all about liquidity now.

RSI doesn't look over-sold yet.

Nothing like the long term log charts to put things in perspective.

Log chart shows a good chance of silver falling further.... perhaps only half the ways so far. If the previous crash is anything to go by, it may take a few more months for silver to bottom. Target to buy 25.... target to sell 100.

The asssumption that the US dollar was simply going to roll over has put a lot of balance. Factis, the dollar will remain strong at times creating huge volatility and corrections. Of course, this was all predictable, and precious metals remain in a bull market.... just a volatile one. The way I hedged was to pile into gold [and silver] bullion assets early on, and then hedge with dollars. The dollar hedge can be increased by trading the volatility of silver. Ideally, if you get one trade right, the gains in your dollar hedge may even match the gains in bullion. A lot have been confused by thinking of the dollar and gold as utterly contrary [each the anti-thesis of the other]. Though at times they will move contrarily, they are actually the two most desired forms of liquidity and accordingly are complementary "investments".

Yep, the 20s looks like a good buy. Was it mentioned that silver dipped down to 26 already? It would be interesting to look at the 2008 chart of silver to see how long it took to bottom. I doubt there is any huge rush here.

Yep, when Roosevelt unilaterally messed around with the gold standard, the poor brits weer utterly shocked. They thought America would carry on where they couldn't any longer.... that is, maintain a relatively stable international monetary system. It could be argued, from a monetray perspective, that Roosevelt's "nationalist" policy contributed and emboldened nascent nationalist movements elsewhere... and helped lead to the breakdown of international order. Of course, if only the US were now on gold, they would have the option of devaluing. As it is, if deflationary forces persist and become stronger. the US could be crucified on a strong dollar. Going back onto an international gold standard may end up being a way to devalue their dollar relative to other currencies, and stabilize trade.

This headline looks a bit silly. The big names get it spectacularly wrong all the time. to think of a couple; the "bond king" turns bearish on US bonds, Rick [from Rick's Picks] jumps from deflation to hyper-inflation. What's needed is rational analysis as opposed to knee-jerk reactions. Gold being down $400 [after a super quick run-up] is not really that big a deal; in real terms the correction is simliar to 2008... and we all know how quickly gold bounced back. I can't post my usual chart now.... but the long term log shows gold correcting to the long term trend line. Doesn't look like the end of a bull market to me.

Nice expression that.

Different courses for different horses Dr Bubb. No point bashing the buy and holders when they have done well to buy and hold over the past few years. Keep in mind also that many buy and holder types have their own forms of hedging. Spikes and consolidations were always a part of the game. If you can trade gold and make more of a profit, well done to you too. Gold has predictably corrected to the long term trend after a spike up. If it trades sideways from here for a few months at around 1600-1650.... that still represents an annually compounding appreciation of around 20% odd.... which has also been predictable. Why get so excited about spikes or corrections when it's the long term trend that's of importance to the [dis]invester?

I've been looking for this kind of volatility in silver for a long time [ideal for trading but difficult to get on the right side of it]. Gold is correcting back to its long term trend line.... silver should continue to over-correct from here. I reckon both are still in a bull market. Buying in the upper 2os and sitting on for a couple of yaers looks good to me.Shame is I just spemt my US dollar hedge.... on land. The same day silver crashed, which i'd been waiting for for artound a year. Can you believe the timing?? Still have the silver bullion bars [there price is little changed in the kiwi dollar]. looks like any trading from now on will have to be restricted to the gold/ silver ratio.....now 55. If I still had US dollars, I'd be buying the double leveraged silver ETF with silver at around 27...28.

http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=9164&view=findpost&p=223293

Yep, confirming that the dollar is the next best currency to gold. Case in point. I had to cash in a brokerage account this morning in order to buy a property. Oh dear, gold has come off, but then I saw that the NZD had come off even more.... my purchasing currency. It was interesting to see how those gold certificates were now worth more in NZD than they were before this correction. Bottom at 1650?

Not sure about collapse, but a good old-fashioned extended depression will do wonders for the moral character of the nations. Good bye to decadent consumerism and all that,.

This thread is polarized. One is either all for science and only science.... or one is anti-science, and all for alternatives. I'd ask why it has to be either/ or. Science is science, philosophy is philosophy, religion is religion, and whackoism is whackoism... everything is what it is, and not another thing.. Once the distinctions are drawn, and the particular approach of each defined, there is no problem.... or polarization. The problem seems to be arising from narrow-mindedness, where one sphere has to gobble up all the others.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/gold-price-may-rise-to-2-500-by-2013-newmont-ceo-o-brien-says.html Gold Price May Rise to $2,500 by 2013, Newmont CEO O’Brien Says

By the long term trend, a consolidation over the next few months to 1650 isn't out of the question: Wouldn't take much to then see it spike to 2000 bit later.

Oh, we think we're very clever monkeys. Too much of "we". What's the point in expanding the quantity of life - whether of populations or lifespans - if the quality of life becomes the casualty? And too many abstractions.... surely the crux of the matter is the existential meaning of one's own life [not to mention the meaning of science], and how to live it. Zamyatin's novel "We" is a good read..... an early distopia [influenced Orwell]. And throw in a bit of Dosteovsky for good measure.... "Notes from the Underground" was my particular favorite. Edit: just read Flap's post above; "3) Even if it is all completely true, I don't see how understanding it makes my life any better" I think there is a way in which diverse reading, thinking, and interests do make us better. The danger is for populations to settle into a "normalized" science, where a certain orthodoxy [norm] sets in and people are "herded" into thinking of the universe, or cosmos, in a particular concrete way. Today's orthodoxy is that it works like some kind of machine.... however complex. The ramification of this for real lives is the loss of dignity and real personal freedom. In a machine-world, "freedom" becomes purely abstract. Entertaining alternative theories, dogmas, whatever, is important because they help to 'unsettle" us and create an open "mind-scape". This is a liberating experience..... not in order to jump from one belief to another, but rather to cultivate an enlightened scepticism towards beliefs in general... beliefs that come to be seen as merely the products of our own machinations. All is art... there really is no science as such. That some find this difficult to acknowledge may be due to a trait of human nature [collective nature/ culture?]... and was analysed in Eric Fromm's "Fear of Freedom".

Which is why I mentioned the connection between "universality" and "tolerance" before. A believer with a "universalist" frame of mind, whether Christian or Muslim, is likely to see themselves revering the same god. Though there are significant differences in their religion, they will no doubt focus on the points held in commmon... that they are both forms of monotheism for example, that they have much of the old testament in common etc. I was listening to a program about the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in the US since 9/11. Some on the "religious right" are identifying muslims with terrorists these days. Here's an example of a burgeoning intolerance... where religion [or a religion] is associated with terror [or fundamentalism]. Yet events have taken a turn to show how silly this all is; the recent event in Norway involved a terrorist who professed to be a Christian..... so apparently no one religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Of course, this can lead to another form of intolerance; that religion per se serves to inspire terrorism. But this idea is also easily refuted by 20th century history, where there are many secular forms of terror, and on an industrial scale.... so neither does religion per se have a monopoly on terror. It's not religion, but fanaticism [whether couched in a religious or irreligious form] that leads to terrorism. Fanaticism arises when power and violence get the upper hand of reason and restraint. Universalism, enlightened scepticism, and tolerance are the forces that keeps a narrowed fanaticism at bay. In a sense, terror was written on the wall once the balance of power [between the great powers... the secular halfway house of Christendom]] was destroyed by two world wars and replaced with a balance of terror. Bringing this back on point, some of the new truths expounded look too individualistic... they almost read as new forms of mysticism, which may be fine for the particular individual but do not contribute much in regard to reconstructing a humane "society". Reason needs to be rehabilitating to power, and the "individual" to the state, in order for that to occur. Maybe Aristotle isn"t so bad after all.

Coherence is not adherence. The ideal of coherency is to take all spheres of life... whether religious, artistic, philosophical, scientific etc and weave them together into a harmonic whole. The "best" belief will be the most universal one.... and this should also [ideally] be the most tolerant [of others] given its universality. Errant beliefs are discarded if they don't resonate [or triangulate] with the larger unified back drop of perceptions/ conceptions.