- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Gold dropping today
Posted on 5/27/14 at 9:40 am
Posted on 5/27/14 at 9:40 am
Currently down $25 today to 1,266. I'm gonna get a few ounces, don't know if it will keep falling though.
1
Posted on 5/27/14 at 9:54 am to TigerSaints318
quote:
don't know if it will keep falling though.
Neither does anyone else.
quote:
Currently down $25 today to 1,266
I feel sorry for the people who bought back when it was 1800.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:07 am to foshizzle
Yea people seem to buy it when they are in a panic at the high prices, but forget about it when things are calm and the price is low.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:43 am to foshizzle
quote:
I feel sorry for the people who bought back when it was 1800.
I don't.
I warned them.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 1:16 pm to TheHiddenFlask
Exactly, some people just have an inate drive to buy high and sell low. They think they are hedging but are really only making loss a sure thing. Thank god for them because there can be no winners without losers.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 2:03 pm to cave canem
The Rivers gold bug crowd scattered like roaches once the market picked up.
Those guys missed a 65% run in the stock market (ignoring the dividend yield) to hold on to that hunk of metal that isn't making them anything and is worth 20% less now.
Unfortunately, those types soured most of the better posters on this board.
Those guys missed a 65% run in the stock market (ignoring the dividend yield) to hold on to that hunk of metal that isn't making them anything and is worth 20% less now.
Unfortunately, those types soured most of the better posters on this board.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 3:07 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
Those guys missed a 65% run in the stock market (ignoring the dividend yield) to hold on to that hunk of metal that isn't making them anything and is worth 20% less now.
Unfortunately, those types soured most of the better posters on this board.
I was very bullish on gold until late 2012/early 2013 when it was rejected at the 1800 level for the third time and I exited all of my positions at that point.
The US Fed and the ECB have handled QE perfectly with the US going first and the ECB to start after ours wraps up. They've succeeded in preventing an inflationary spike in the commodities.
Many get attached to ideas and theories and let pride dictate investing/trading positions. One can't be in love with an idea and must be attached to the money in ones account.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 3:49 pm to LSU0358
The US Fed and the ECB have handled QE perfectly 
Posted on 5/27/14 at 3:57 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
US Fed and the ECB have handled QE perfectly
If you had been in Bernanke's shoes what would you have done?
QE in the US was done to firm up the banking sector and it has succeeded pretty well. The stock market going up has been a pleasant side effect. The ECB and the Fed couldn't both QE at the same time, or we'd have seen $250 oil and $3,000 gold. The US is now winding down its QE and I'm guessing the ECB starts the European version before the end of 2014.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 5:20 pm to LSU0358
If you had been in Bernanke's shoes what would you have done?
I first would have let the country go in to a short, steep depression. Yes, I am serious. Economists mostly agree it would have been a short event. They are not as uniform as to the severity of the event. A few maintain it would have hardly caused a blip. I won't go that far, but you get my point.
That would allow for balance sheets to get cleaned up, and those taking the losses would have been both equity holders and creditors. It would have allowed for a lot of things, but I'm not going to get in to an argument with the bankers on here about how precious and wise the Fed always is, always without mistake.
I am one that owns gold and silver, but I'm not a conspiracy theory guy. I understand what a CDS is, and have traded them, and used them as insurance.
There is a lot of blame to go around, but a few bankruptcies would have done a lot. Capital is fungible, however much the government attempts to make it not so. Capital would have flowed to the proper places, the markets would have corrected.
The intervention, and picking winners and losers, was a bad, bad idea. Their unwinding of all of this liquidity, a simple process according to one banker on here, although that's not what the FOMC tells us in the monthly conference calls we get, is going to have consequences. Good consequences, and has already had bad consequences.
You're now going to ask for specifics. It's really difficult to point to specifics (either side) because one would be trying to prove a negative.
The University of Chicago School of Economics is a good place to start researching. And it's not exactly a hot bed of conservative political thought either.
Those that claim small business owners and taxpayers didn't take a loss on this (because the Uncle Sug has been paid back, or it would have been worse) never met a payroll, and I, along with several economists more educated than I, would disagree.
I first would have let the country go in to a short, steep depression. Yes, I am serious. Economists mostly agree it would have been a short event. They are not as uniform as to the severity of the event. A few maintain it would have hardly caused a blip. I won't go that far, but you get my point.
That would allow for balance sheets to get cleaned up, and those taking the losses would have been both equity holders and creditors. It would have allowed for a lot of things, but I'm not going to get in to an argument with the bankers on here about how precious and wise the Fed always is, always without mistake.
I am one that owns gold and silver, but I'm not a conspiracy theory guy. I understand what a CDS is, and have traded them, and used them as insurance.
There is a lot of blame to go around, but a few bankruptcies would have done a lot. Capital is fungible, however much the government attempts to make it not so. Capital would have flowed to the proper places, the markets would have corrected.
The intervention, and picking winners and losers, was a bad, bad idea. Their unwinding of all of this liquidity, a simple process according to one banker on here, although that's not what the FOMC tells us in the monthly conference calls we get, is going to have consequences. Good consequences, and has already had bad consequences.
You're now going to ask for specifics. It's really difficult to point to specifics (either side) because one would be trying to prove a negative.
The University of Chicago School of Economics is a good place to start researching. And it's not exactly a hot bed of conservative political thought either.
Those that claim small business owners and taxpayers didn't take a loss on this (because the Uncle Sug has been paid back, or it would have been worse) never met a payroll, and I, along with several economists more educated than I, would disagree.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 5:29 pm to Iowa Golfer
You are saying the fed did TARP.
Spot on analysis.
Spot on analysis.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 5:41 pm to TheHiddenFlask
QE / TARP. There is a relationship between the two.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 5:59 pm to Iowa Golfer
Everything you complained about was TARP.
I don't disagree with your points, necessarily, they just aren't about QE.
I don't disagree with your points, necessarily, they just aren't about QE.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 6:30 pm to TheHiddenFlask
Same argument. QE wasn't supposed to pick winners. It did by its definition. Plenty of quotes by gubmit type people about attempting to avoid wealth deterioration that would be caused by increasing commodity prices. It did by some of its purchases. Helped some institutions stay afloat, although they deny this against evidence in plain sight even today.
They never talk about how QE benefited the same places that tarp did. But you're in the business right? At a large bank? It really doesn't take too much to connect the dots does it? Because in the end wasn't tarp a bait and switch? Didn't tarp in the end do exactly what qe did in some instances? Someone please answer this no, because at that point I'll find a link from some gubmit agency about what tarp was and did at the end.
QE was better imo. Marginally. I would have preferred it to not have happen as the horrible consequences would have actually been beneficial in the long term. For a simple guy like me, there really isn't too much difference between tarp and q.e.. Also for some really smart guys, but let's keep it at the level I'm at, which is a simpleton.
So yes, my original rotflmao, or whatever it is, still stands, and no, I don't think they have handled either tarp or q.e. "perfectly."
I actually think that tarp and q.e. are almost the exact same things. And this sentence is placed here so some others can have some fun with it.
They never talk about how QE benefited the same places that tarp did. But you're in the business right? At a large bank? It really doesn't take too much to connect the dots does it? Because in the end wasn't tarp a bait and switch? Didn't tarp in the end do exactly what qe did in some instances? Someone please answer this no, because at that point I'll find a link from some gubmit agency about what tarp was and did at the end.
QE was better imo. Marginally. I would have preferred it to not have happen as the horrible consequences would have actually been beneficial in the long term. For a simple guy like me, there really isn't too much difference between tarp and q.e.. Also for some really smart guys, but let's keep it at the level I'm at, which is a simpleton.
So yes, my original rotflmao, or whatever it is, still stands, and no, I don't think they have handled either tarp or q.e. "perfectly."
I actually think that tarp and q.e. are almost the exact same things. And this sentence is placed here so some others can have some fun with it.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 6:32 pm to Iowa Golfer
Also, it was never clear to me that anyone in any type of establishment (and large banks are clearly establishment) could ever be John Galt, or Hank Rearden.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:50 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
it was never clear to me that anyone in any type of establishment (and large banks are clearly establishment) could ever be John Galt, or Hank Rearden.
Nobody can live up to the standards of a deliberately idealized fictional character.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:38 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:Why not Ebeneezer Scrooge? Or any other make believe character?
Also, it was never clear to me that anyone in any type of establishment (and large banks are clearly establishment) could ever be John Galt, or Hank Rearden.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 12:06 am to LSURussian
I was wondering when you'd show up in a thread about gold not living up to expectations.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 6:36 am to foshizzle
Dollar cost average in to stocks. Great move. Dollar cost average in to precious metals, not so much. Funny how the people are trained to think. Trained, and follow many times without independent thought.
Not directed at anyone specifically, just a general observation.
LINK
Not directed at anyone specifically, just a general observation.
LINK
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:37 am to Iowa Golfer
Is that link supposed to be something besides "shitty pizza"?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News