Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;EWC3, post: 7855628, member: 93416&quot;]I would say so. Seems to me you missed the fact I posted that about 6 months ago – and this group being surely fluid – I thought to drop by and see if things had improved. On the current showing the answer will likely be no.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I note Valentinian likes this - and as I recall - he is the only guy here I ever found an important measure of agreement with. I only half agree this Jeff.</p><p><br /></p><p>The so called “commodity” value of gold is surely in large part a function of its monetary significance. A lot of the reason people hold gold is surely to do with it being a store of value independent of government.</p><p><br /></p><p>As I recall back in the 1970’s the Indian gvt tried to undermine the value of gold by starting to sell 16 tons of gold onto the market - at a ton a day. Bullion dealers made a joke of it – from the get go the gold price went up every day. Gvt got cold feet a few days in. Similar thing happened with Gordon Brown – he wanted to be an intellectual world leader in a push to get gold out of the financial equation altogether, and sold all the UK’s stocks. Only made himself a laughing stock.</p><p><br /></p><p>So – I think its misleading to stress “commodity”. I think gold is still to an important extent a kind of traditional money form – a safe haven from gvt manipulation of the money supply. As it always was (though actually – to a less degree than silver most times pre 1870)</p><p><br /></p><p>Seems to me QE added a whole new dimension to this debate, and really - I am still amazed no one commented substantively at all on that</p><p><br /></p><p>Rob T[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in