Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SilverSurfer, post: 963687, member: 21603&quot;]As I said, the analysis didn&#039;t look at any of the numbers.&nbsp; All it did was look at the slope.&nbsp; Increasing slope means stocks did better, decreasing slope means gold did better.&nbsp; If I only had one data point at one place in time, I couldn&#039;t tell which was doing better.&nbsp; My analysis didn&#039;t care about starting points or ending points.&nbsp; All the analysis did was take over a period of time (choose any you wish) stocks did better and other periods of time gold did better.&nbsp; The time is what I&#039;m looking at, not the ultimate end number nor the beginning number, but how the two related to each other over time.</p><p><br /></p><p>The ratio of the two numbers could be away out of whack depending on the starting points.&nbsp; But if the ratio was 100 stock to 1 gold and then became 50 stocks to 1 gold, then stocks gained in value, as it only takes 50 now to buy one gold.&nbsp; If it were 100 stocks to 1 gold and became 200 stocks to 1 gold, stocks are worth less as it now takes 200 stocks to buy one gold.&nbsp; Of course, both gold and stocks could both of been falling in value during this time period, but maybe gold didn&#039;t fall as far as stock did, which would still make gold the better performer, even though both are losing value.[/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