Nadler at Kitco

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1258049769.php

"reports of 400 oz. “good delivery” bricks of gold found gutted and filled with tungsten within the confines of LBMA approved vaults in Hong Kong."

"I know folks who have copies of the original shipping docs with dates and exact weights of “tungsten” bars shipped to Ft. Knox."

These are quotes from the linked article you posted. Let's examine them. With respect to the "reports", no sources are named. According to whom? Who provided the information? Am I supposed to take the writer's word that what he is saying is true? I don't think so.

As far as knowing "folks who have copies of the original shipping docs" ..well, gosh darn if this is true let's post them in the article to back up our story. The documents are not posted because they do not exist.

As Ernest Hemingway once said "What you need to be a good writer is a fool-proof crap-detector."

I'll use this article to fertilize my lawn.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You are 100% correct, my apologies! I will never again try and think at 3am...lol

 

Good for you! Ron Kirby has never been accused of lying, he runs a very respectful financial business in Toronto, I do not believe he would risk his reputation by writing a false article. I'm new, it will take time to figure out who everyone is...

 

my apologies to the OP for going "Off Topic" on this thread!

 

Thanks for your reply.

I do not know Rob Kirby. I spent a little time on the web researching him. One thing I noticed is that he's not used as a source of quotes and/or information
for credible news sources such as Reuters, WSJ, Bloomberg etc. His name pops up for the most part in small-time blogs.

My conclusion is there does not seem to be sufficient evidence for his claims. He may in fact, believe that what he is writing is true, but he will have to provide credible sources and documentation for me to take his articles seriously.

If he does in fact run a financial business, then he could have motives to write articles that might attract investors to his firm.

 

Thank you for a very well written reply. You obviously know a lot about finance. Not that I agree. I believe that past economic crises have been caused, not averted, by fractional reserve banking, fiat money, the federal reserve system and other such tools.

"A common objective for all G-20 countries is political stability...no waving of pitchforks in the street please!"

That's pretty easy to achieve, all you need is a scape goat. To this day Herbert Hoover is blamed for the great depression more than FDR. It will be easy for other countries to blame the US, they already blame us for everything.

"A lot of the stimulus money (a huge number 700+ billion) that was printed is sitting in banks, not in circulation. Unless lending standards are eased and/or banks are willing to take more risks, that money isn't in play."

I think the "money supply" is pretty irrelevent as regards supply/demand. Credit card limits should also be included. After all, if I really needed to buy something, I could always charge it if I didn't have the cash on hand.

I remember when the Detroit Red Wings professional hockey team signed their first Russian player. The first time his wife went to an American grocery store, she wanted to buy ALL the meat they had. I married a russian woman, so I understand it. In russia, money didn't matter, because there was nothing to buy with it. Prices were cheap, but the stores were empty. Russians saw no value in saving money. During the carter years, my father put an 800 gallon gas tank in the ground, to make sure he's have gas.

"...you need inflation at a reasonable rate to grow any economy.".
There are 2 meanings of "inflation", there's money supply inflation, and there's price increase inflation. You'd think an increase in money supply would cause price increases, but its not necessarily so. No matter how much money everyone has, they're only going to buy so much milk. When there's a lot of demand for something that can be produced, the price often goes down because of increased production, i.e. computers, digital cameras, etc. Economies were growing before fractional reserve banking or fiat money.

China currently holds 800 billion of our debt. That's $800 per person in china. That's bad enough, but we're not paying it, we're getting further in debt. The fact that other countries are as irresponsible as us might be good, but it has to come to a head. I'm over sixty, and I've never bought anything "on time" except houses. More and more people are seeing that debt is bad. But, our government seems to think we need to borrow our way to prosperity. I can't see that working.

Thanks again, I do feel better. I now think the crash of the dollar may take longer than I thought. Fiat money is a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes work fine, until people want to cash out. I don't think the G20 countries are going to let us take them down with them. When you eat toxic assets, it makes you toxic. Only gold will save us!

 

I thought Nadler was interesting today (12-3-2009). He ends his column with a quote from Albert Cheng, managing director, Far East, at the World Gold Council.

"Gold is not something that will make you rich overnight. But it will help you sleep well," he told Reuters on the sidelines of the Shanghai gold conference. People's desire to hold gold reflects bullion's role as a means to preserve wealth, he said."

As a gold bug, I can relate. A gold bug believes you can't make profit buying gold, because gold is the measure. I wonder what Nadler would think about being called a gold bug?

 

In today's Jon Nadler article:
" Newton Vindicated. Montgolfier Bros Puzzled " Dec 7th, Mr. Nadler selectively quoted only the portion of a Bloomberg article that supported his bearish point of view.

Here is the quote he chose:

“Gold’s best year in three decades has yet to match the returns of an interest-bearing checking account for anyone who bought the most malleable of metals coveted for at least 5,000 years during the last peak in January, 1980. Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London.

The S&P 500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested, Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back. “You give up a lot of return for the privilege of sleeping well at night,” said James Paulsen, who oversees about $375 billion as chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis. “If the world falls into an abyss, gold could be a store of value. There is some merit in that, but you can end up holding too much gold waiting for the world to end. From my experience, the world has not ended yet.”

Here is another quote from the same article that he chose to leave out:

“Gold is a useless asset to hold long term,” said Charles Morris, who manages more than $2 billion at HSBC Global Asset Management’s Absolute Return fund in London. “I’m not a gold bug who believes that you want to own this thing in your portfolio at all times. We should own it when the going is good, and the going right now is great.”

Those who bought gold when it reached a two-decade low of $251.95 in August 1999 have seen a 387 percent return, more than four times the 82 percent gain in Treasuries. An investment in the S&P 500 lost 0.4 percent through the end of last month. Interest on checking accounts shrank to 0.14 percent this year from 0.89 percent in 1999.

Since the S&P 500 peaked in October 2007, investors in the index lost 25 percent, holders of Treasuries made 16 percent and gold buyers are up 64 percent.[/COLOR]

If you read the Bloomberg article, there are arguments for and against investing in gold, but it is not the one-sided argument that Mr. Nadler would like you to believe. Here is the link to the entire Bloomberg article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIMzb9wGeAB8

 

"Originally Posted by Morgan1878
My main reason for optimism is that the health of the global economy is an inter-related process. All of the G20 countries know this and they are working to eliminate the excesses that cause financial crises. They have at their disposal communication and analytical tools that were non-existent during past economic crises."

I think the economic history of the 20th century proved to everyone beyond any reasonable doubt that centralized economic planning is a failure. The G20 will fail too regardless of their good intentions or advanced analytical tools.

 

I associate centralized planning in the 20th century with the Soviet Union and other communist countries. It is true in these cases that centralized planning failures was the major reason the regimes in the Soviet Union and the East-bloc fell.

I do not view the G20 as a group that embraces centralized planning. I see it more as a confederation that finds it useful to convene, discuss and just possibly address any excesses that are imperiling the global economy.

While each country has its own self-interests at heart, I think that most leaders are pragmatic enough to realize that there are fires that need to be put out from time to time lest the whole forest burn down.

While there's no guarantee that keeping lines of communication open will yield positive results, I prefer this approach to doing nothing at all.

 

I think the G20 is the poster child for 21st century central planning on a scale unimagined in the old USSR. They just haven't worked out all of the strategies yet. The "leaders" are the ones setting the forest fires, and they are going to Copenhagen with buckets of gasoline. I would prefer that they do nothing. That approach has worked best by test for hundreds of years.

But this really isn't an appropriate post for this forum, so I'll just leave it at that and move on.:smile