G0ldfinger Posted January 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 How did Nadler's 2010 gold and silver forecast go? 50% off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixel8r Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 How did Nadler's 2010 gold and silver forecast go? 50% off? Five predictions over the last few years all to low, some by a massive amount; Grading Jon Nadler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LauraB Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Gentlemen, my apologies for drifting away from the main focus of this thread but I think the great contrarian may have inadvertently stumbled across the reason for his aversion to gold! http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...howtopic=156973 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njpurser Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Gentlemen, my apologies for drifting away from the main focus of this thread but I think the great contrarian may have inadvertently stumbled across the reason for his aversion to gold! http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...howtopic=156973 His contributions are priceless though, don't you agree? Literally worth his weight in gold...... Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon junkie Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 An abstraction. The world of markets and economies are "ruled" by the vagaries of human nature [not philosophy, ideology, or science]. Losing sight of this can lead to all sorts of deterministic errors... such as assuming prices will move mechanically one way. An internet forum should be a space for thought, not edification. Philosophy is just thought, and teaches people to doubt bad thinking and bad faith. Most people seem to want to believe today rather than exercize critical and rational thought. I think laziness may be involved here. Your post sums up Goldfingers point perfectly. Well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romans holiday Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Your post sums up Goldfingers point perfectly. Well done! You've obviously missed my point then. Shall I spell it out. What seems to have come into disrepute today, namely, philosophy [or what some derisively call waffling] is no more than human thought. It's also been termed enlightened scepticism, which sees through all the pretensions and figments of that species of the imagination known as the intellect. The "laws of nature", that supposedly rule our world, are just such figments.... useful hypotheses, but not to be taken too seriously. It's naive in the extreme to believe these laws of our own making actually exist, when all we are doing is "projecting" them onto reality... but then I guess one has to believe in something as evidently [human] nature abhors a vacuum. edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon junkie Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 You've obviously missed the point then. Shall I spell it out. What seems to have come into disrepute today, namely, philosophy [or what some derisively call waffling] is no more than human thought. It's also been termed enlightened scepticism, which sees through all the pretensions and figments of that species of the imagination known as the intellect. The "laws of nature", that supposedly rule our world, are just such figments.... useful hypotheses, but not to be taken too seriously. It's naive in the extreme to believe these laws of our making actually exist, as if we can project them onto reality... but then I guess one has to believe in something as [human] nature abhors a vacuum. you can't help your self can you! I haven't missed Goldfingers point as he put it so succinctly! I am not even sure what your point is. Which is my point - if you get my point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romans holiday Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 you can't help your self can you! I haven't missed Goldfingers point as he put it so succinctly! I am not even sure what your point is. Which is my point - if you get my point! Yes, you missed my point. Here's a suggestion; if you are going to reply to someone's post, why not first read carefully that person's post and try your best to understand what they are saying. Then if you disagree you can give reasons for it, taking the discussion further if you wanted. Seems these days most are talking past each other without understanding the terms of the discussion etc. We have the technical means to communicate like never before, and yet often we're not up to the task... it's like there's no common language and everyone's bunkering down into their own camp, or tribe. Vico [the Italian philosopher] drew attention to this failure of understanding that looks to be a typical predicament for modern minds that operate solely along lines of analysis. He suggested a quality of mind termed "fantasia", which involved a kind of imaginative travel by which mind can communicate with mind even if separated by vast expanses of time and space [through reading... no black arts required]. This kind of travelling also helps you realize how parochial and small-minded our present ideas and concerns often are. but enough waffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon junkie Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 but enough waffling. Now you are getting the point. TBH I think only you understand your posts if others don't understand them like I said then you are failing as a communicator. So its no good blaming me for not understanding waffle. I concur with GF waffle and excessive charting reiteration of ones position or successes simply covers up for a lack of knowledge and understanding. I think GF has summed up a fair amount of what happens here on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romans holiday Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Now you are getting the point. TBH I think only you understand your posts if others don't understand them like I said then you are failing as a communicator. So its no good blaming me for not understanding waffle. I concur with GF waffle and excessive charting reiteration of ones position or successes simply covers up for a lack of knowledge and understanding. I think GF has summed up a fair amount of what happens here on this forum. "Waffle" performs an important function. Unless we waffle from time to time, then we will take our ideas too seriously.... and what we think is knowledge soon becomes dogma. Where's the freedom of thought in that? Anyway this is getting off topic.... though much waffling could and needs to be done about gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon junkie Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 "Waffle" performs an important function. Unless we waffle from time to time, then we will take our ideas too seriously.... and what we think is knowledge soon becomes dogma. Where's the freedom of thought in that? Anyway this is way off the topic of gold.... though much waffling could and needs to be done about gold. Failure to address any of my points as per usual. Waffle only serves a function to the waffler if the recipient does not understand it then the waffle is meaningless. Please don't bother responding as I agree it is way off topic and I don't see you accomodating other points of view or responding to specific points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schaublin Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Gentlemen, my apologies for drifting away from the main focus of this thread but I think the great contrarian may have inadvertently stumbled across the reason for his aversion to gold! http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...howtopic=156973 RB is a proven reliable contra indicator so attempting to understand his thinking is useful to gold holders. Looking through that thread, RB completely misunderstands the topic and goes off on a tangent about entropy. The most probable cause for brain shrinkage is the absence of evolutionary pressure since farming was adopted. RB does not understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlton Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 you can't help your self can you! I haven't missed Goldfingers point as he put it so succinctly! I am not even sure what your point is. Which is my point - if you get my point! I think this post demonstrates that philosophy is not a ten minute per day hobby. Philosophy is not "wobbling," it's reasoned argument; it requires a lot of work and a lot of time, which is something Gen-Y may not be well prepared for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexreeve Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 RB is a proven reliable contra indicator so attempting to understand his thinking is useful to gold holders. Looking through that thread, RB completely misunderstands the topic and goes off on a tangent about entropy. The most probable cause for brain shrinkage is the absence of evolutionary pressure since farming was adopted. RB does not understand this. Or maybe smaller head=less chance of mother and baby dying in childbirth, which until recently was the biggest killer of women iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon junkie Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 I think this post demonstrates that philosophy is not a ten minute per day hobby. Philosophy is not "wobbling," it's reasoned argument; it requires a lot of work and a lot of time, which is something Gen-Y may not be well prepared for. When this forum is renamed Global Philosophy Forum you may have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romans holiday Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 When this forum is renamed Global Philosophy Forum you may have a point. Here's the point. Predicting markets and macro-economic trends involves studying various disciplines such as economics, history, history of ideas/ philosophy, mass psychology/ ideology etc. At best we get a murky picture that will never be certain, or 100%. Now some might choose to "debunk" philosophy and call it "waffle", and then I might in turn debunk an ideology and call it hubris..... but that's not going to get the discussion very far is it. I hope I stated that succinctly enough for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creditcrunch Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm21024.htm Could someone explain why information on bullion is now withheld under FOI exemptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpig Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 There is one obvious possibility... http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm21024.htm Could someone explain why information on bullion is now withheld under FOI exemptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electroweak Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Wht's the possibility Warpig? - meanwhile: UPDATE 1-U.S. Mint gold coin sales drop in 2010 03 Jan 2011 - 12:19 * American Eagle gold coin sales dip to 1.221 mln oz in 2010 * Gold and silver coin sales slip sharply in December By Jan Harvey LONDON, Jan 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Mint said sales of its American Eagle gold coins fell 14 percent last year to 1.221 million ounces, though its sales of silver bullion coins jumped by one-fifth to 34.663 million ounces In December, sales of both were sharply lower, with silver coin sales dropping by more than a third year-on-year to 1.772 million ounces, while gold coin sales slid 74 percent to just 60,000 ounces from 231,500 ounces. Silver coin sales had hit a record 4.2 million ounces in November, the strongest level since their introduction in 1986. Late 2009 was a particularly strong time for gold and silver coin sales as investors spooked by the spreading financial crisis turned to precious metals as a haven from risk. While investors remain nervous over the outlook for the financial markets and other assets such as currencies, appetite for so-called safe-haven assets tempered slightly last year from the extremely high levels in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixel8r Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Here's the point. Predicting markets and macro-economic trends involves studying various disciplines such as economics, history, history of ideas/ philosophy, mass psychology/ ideology etc. At best we get a murky picture that will never be certain, or 100%. Now some might choose to "debunk" philosophy and call it "waffle", and then I might in turn debunk an ideology and call it hubris..... but that's not going to get the discussion very far is it. I hope I stated that succinctly enough for you. Some of use seem to be doing better than you philosophisers without all the waffle I think is what he is trying to put across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternationalRockSuperstar Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 An abstraction. The world of markets and economies are "ruled" by the vagaries of human nature [not philosophy, ideology, or science]. economies are bound by real world physical constraints. "Waffle" performs an important function. Unless we waffle from time to time, then we will take our ideas too seriously.... and if you waffle all the time then no-one will take your posts seriously at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberum Abritrium Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 "Waffle" performs an important function. Unless we waffle from time to time, and if you waffle all the time then no-one will take your posts seriously at all. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpig Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 IMO it's because (This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000). Wht's the possibility Warpig? - meanwhile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G0ldfinger Posted January 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 IMO it's because (This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixel8r Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now