[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
World central banks admit to 300 billion liquidity injection. Who knows how much will be injected next week. Gold should benefit from this greatly. Might have to revise my 2010-2012 target from $2000/oz to $5000/oz at this pace.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/finan...6c71&k=4187
[/ QUOTE ]
i will bet you any amount of money that gold will not reach $5,000 between now and 2012.
name your price.
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
Barron,
First I want to know what your thoughts are on the poll you conducted. I hope you learned a few things and that the tulip mania was based on monetary expansion, not cause some queen said they were pretty.
[/ QUOTE ]
i didn't read the piece on the tulips yet.
overall, the thread was very illuminating. i've been reading a lot on AC (i assume that is soem abbreviation for Austrian economic thought...if not, when i say AC i mean austrian economics).
what i've seen though, and this is obviously my opinion, is that radical and fairly silly people tend to use AC as a backing for their views. i think the theory has some merit, but it isn't the end all and be all as some of its backers and purporters seem to think it is.
further, i specifically do not want to hate on the people who don't use AC as a backing for insane theories.
the problem, obviously, is that basically everybody i've seen post who believes in AC fully also believes that the fed is the main problem and that the affect of distortions caused by the fed are way more costly than distortions caused by NOT having the fed.
i believe in a lot of what AC says, but the fed is another institution not responsible to the US Govt and is only connected in so far as its initial funding and the appointments to the board.
i definitely believe that i (and all others) shouldn't be paying for US sugar producers to survive and all other US govt. subsidies and all other market interventions, with a few exceptions. AC believers i think (correct me if i'm wrong) believe that when the cost/benefit analysis of clean fuels and green business become attractive, that participants will act accordingly. so, the govt. shouldn't subsidize anything (i.e. just stay completely out of hte market) that would force them to do that (or make laws accordingly).
personally, i think enforcing laws (like carbon emissions etc.) and issueing subsidies that make companies do this now before it is too late is a necessary "evil" of govt intervention in the markets.
in all other aspects (aside from the fed and the "necessary" interventions of the govt), i think AC is very well founded in that the govt, in almost every case, shouldn't hamper markets as govt interventions always have a) unintended concequences, and b) not been able to even accomplish the final goal of the intervention (currency pegs etc. etc...they all fall apart). protectionism is attrocious etc. etc.
i do hold universal judgement aside and make statements like "almost every" because i think there are times and places for govt intervention. i.e. when a new or small country wants to remove obstacles from its until then closed economy, a peg may be necessary to ensure stability and reduce frictions on businesses not used to a floating peg initially. then it might make sense to have a peg.
also, i firmly and wholeheartedly believe that almost any theory that believes in solid absolutes is too strict, and most likely wrong in that firm belief. as humans, we have been proven wrong in our most highly regarded beliefs time and time again. so anything that says "THIS IS IT" i hold to an exceptionally high standard of proof. there are, of course, exceptions (theory of evolution in my mind can say for sure etc.)
anywyas, thats another topic for another time.
[ QUOTE ]
You are going to have to give me huge odds on Gold 5000 by 2012, otherwise I can put the money directly into the market and beat your 1:1 payout. Give me some great odds and I might place that bet.
[/ QUOTE ]
well fair odds are simply based on the probabilty of gold going to 5k. so what is your view on that? i won't give you my view on that as odds because that isn't the bet. i want to bet against YOUR view of the probability of gold going to 5k by 2012.
[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind, I am saying Gold 2000, not 5000. I said I will revise my target if they keep on pumping away like crazy.
[/ QUOTE ]
thats all well and good, so also include your view on gold going to 2k and i'll bet against you on that as well.
Barron