Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikem2000, post: 1531284, member: 30574&quot;]As I said, there is no argument SHORT Term.&nbsp; I am talking LONG term, and LONG Term, you do not need the price to rise, to get it out of people&#039;s hands, you just dig more.&nbsp; It only costs $20 an oz to dig it up.</p><p><br /></p><p>As far as you statement being true, the proof is not there.&nbsp; Sure, I have read what you have read, but the first thing is you mis-represented what it said.&nbsp; When, I read it, it said what BU&#039;s post said.&nbsp; Bullion Equivalent.&nbsp; You left out the equivalent.&nbsp; What exactly does the mean?&nbsp; Maybe it means the number of grams available per person, at the time, maybe not.&nbsp; The fact is we don&#039;t know what is means, but you cannot assume it means the total available ounces was greater 700 years ago.&nbsp; That just flies in the face of logic.</p><p><br /></p><p>Secondly, just because someone says it, does not make it true.&nbsp; Just as we were chatting about the Silver Institutes numbers, must be looked at with at critical eye, so should your claim. I have really only seen folks like Ted Butler state those kinds of stats with no proof at all.&nbsp; Pure logic would suggest those claims are indeed false.&nbsp; These folks also always seem to have another agenda also.&nbsp; They are either bullion dealers, or selling newsletters, or something.&nbsp; I have NEVER seen that claim from an unbiased source, if you have please prove me wrong.</p><p><br /></p><p>I mean it is comical that BU provided a link on what you are saying, and the name of the site was rumormillnews.com. That is not a site I would go to for investment advice, of course YMMV[/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