a lot of the technical analysis people think that gold will go back to $700ish before finally making the big bull run. So another big correction is certainly possible. i'm not selling any of my gold though, that's for sure. if it does go to $700 again... i'll just buy more. i personally don't think we're going to see the price fall, and there's just as good a chance that it goes up... but a lot of the technical guys on the financial sense news hour think gold is going down... also, Puru Saxena sold all his gold from his managed account.

but these same people who claim that gold is going to $700 in the short to medimum term... they think it's going to the moon in the long term. They said that at some point, gold is the only asset you will want to own. So i've already got my gold, so i'm set... and if you don't already own some gold... you should buy some. but this may not be the best time to plow 100% of your net worth into gold because we may get a better buying opertunity at some point. but everyone should own some physical gold in their house as a hedge for the worst case scenerio.

i personally think that this economic collapse is so dire, that it is best to be on the safe side and buy physical while you still can... beceause it's better to be a few days early, than one day too late. if you try to wait for the perfect time, you might mess up and miss out. so i'm happy holding my gold for many years... but i've got some cash on the sidelines incase the prices falls again.

I'll reword your post for you "I burned myself and other people the last time with my horrible recommendations so I figured out a better syntax so it will be hard for me to seem wrong in any scenerio. I think gold is a buy here but it could go down 30% to $700. If you're dumb enough to listen to me, good luck trying to allocate capital today and on continued weakness when I just suggested a massive 30% move down in gold could be in the cards."

At least Info is consistently ******ed.

When silver dipped down to 10$ or under I tried to buy all of the silver I possibly could... but none of the B+M dealers I normally buy from had ANY AT ALL in stock... and there was very little to be had from online dealers either... lowest apmex had when spot was $10 was priced at $15+++ for generic rounds... I wouldn't be surprised to see the spot price of silver hit down to $6 an ounce or less... but there will be a $9++ premium over spot at that time if you actually want to take delivery of some physical silver... last time the price hit down below $10 not one online dealer had a 100 oz bar for sale...

When I was trying to buy from B+M dealers when spo was $10 an ounce they were offering me finders fee if I knew anyone who had any for sale @ $12/oz... You can manipulate the paper price all you want but the physical price really doesn't have much downside risk... and he paper ponzi scheme ETFs obviously have unlimited downside risk.
sure you should dollar cost average in, but silver is a SCREAMING BUY if you don't have any right now... if the price drops too far down there is simply none for sale anywhere... i have to echo plowking's sentiment... we could see silver triple in one day... its better to be a few years too early than one day too late

i'm not claiming that i know with 100% certainty what will happen in the short run. if anyone tells you that they know for sure which direction something is going in the short run, then they are full of ****. though i am very confident that gold is going much higher in the long run. But it is certainly possible that gold can go lower in the short run. And anyone who is investing in precious metals, should be investing with the knowledge that it is possible that the metals go though big corrections. so it is important to realize that these corrections can come at any time, but they should be looked at as buying opertunities. but i still think it's important for everyone to have at least some physical gold... and even though i've put most of my savings into gold and silver... that is not something that i would recomend others to do, since the metals can be volitile, don't pay dividends, don't pay interst, etc. But i am a strong believer that gold and silver should be a part of everyone's portfolio... and if gold does fall to the $700 level, then it would be an excellent time to put speculative money to work and move bigger portions of your wealth into precious metals.

and... i've never burned anyone by telling them to buy gold (which is really the only asset i recomend to people). As a Canadian, gold is very near its record high... it's around $1100 an ounce in Canadian dollars, so it's had great gains over the years. In US dollars, gold is above $900 an ounce, so it's only about 10% off it's peak... there are very few stocks and assets that are near all time highs and have held onto the gains it has made over the decade.

let me use a hypothetical example to prove how ******ed your reply was:

Let's say that you were talking about the moon landing in a forum (like i was talking about gold confiscation)..... and then i reply to you that i don't think the moon landing actually happened and this was just some science fiction conspiracy (in the same way that you said that gold confiscation never happened).

So i ask you for evidence and sources to prove that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon. So you show me news paper articles (like we showed you Executive Order number 6102)... and then you explain how the moon landing was a fact, that almost everyone agrees the moon landing happened, that people are still alive who watched it on tv at the time, etc.

Then you ask me for evidence to prove my point that no one has ever landed on the moon and that the moon landing was fake. and my reply is

Uhhhm, so you want me to prove a negative?

edit: To make it crystal clear, I can't prove that something didn't happen.

wouldn't the burdon of proof be on me to prove that the moon landing was fake or never happened? even though i would be "proving a negative" ... there is still evidence i could reference to prove my point. I could make the argument that our atmosphere is too hot and would melt the space ship. i could make the arguement that we couldn't build a space ship that would hold enough gas to make it to the moon. I could make the arguement that the shuttle is too small to hold enough air for the astronauts, etc.

----------------------

So when i say that gold confiscation happened and you say that it didn't happen... it's such BS that i am being forced to come up with all the evidence to support my position, whereas you claim that you do not have to come up with any evidence to support your claims because it would be "proving a negative".

Why can't you find old news paper articles or academic journals, or economic textbooks that say things like "despite the fact that Executive Order number 6102 was passed in 1933, very little gold was actually confiscated. Even though the law was passed, it was rarely enforced and most Americans did not turn their gold into the government." If you found credible sources with statements like this written, would that not be proof that there was no gold confiscation?

It's funny that i write a fairly long reply to your claims... yet you just ignored the majority of what i said, and you decided to simply argue semantics. you claim that you don't have to prove anything because it's "impossible to prove a negative". give me a break. you present no evidence and nothing to support your claims, and then claim that you cannot produce any evidence because you can't prove a negative.

----------------------------

look... we all know what is really going on here. Before you read this thread, you had no clue about gold confiscation. If i had come up to you on the street a month ago, and asked you to tell me about the 1933 gold confiscation... you would have said that you have never heard of it. And that's fine... i would say that most people don't know about the 1933 gold confiscation. And since you had never studied the great depression or monitary history, you didn't know anything about this... so when you saw someone in this thread talk about gold confiscation, you thought he was full of it. you thought it was just some conspiracy and that it didn't really happen. you were wrong. your gut reaction was that this was a pretty far fetched concept, and assumed it wasn't true. but instead of asking for more information... you said things like "So you concede no gold was confiscated? " ... and
so it really was not a "moronic" example as you earlier claimed. This guy was not just making a "boogie men" situation with a "defunct law"....

why is it so hard for you to admit that you were wrong? that gold was confiscated and that you just didn't know anything about it? you're the one who came into the discussion from an ignorant perspective. and since you were obviously wrong, and obviously don't have a clue about what you're talking about, you start argueing semantics and a bunch of other nonsense to make it seems as if your initial reactions were grounded in fact (when they were actually grounded by nothing but your ignorance and arrogance).

what are you talking about? your post is just all over the place, and completely non-sensical.

the schiff loses are from clients who didn't do well, but they are given the statements of the performance OF THE FUNDS. He does run actual funds (not sure why you said he doesn't run funds). none of his clients made 80% (or any money) with him over the year 2008. all of his funds lost money. if you don't see that you're nuts.

his positions across the board was long gold, long emerging markets, long oil, short the dollar etc.

he (and anybody who had money with him) got destroyed. your post implies that some clients of his made money and some lost it but we only hear allegations from upset clients. facts are clearly otherwise so not really sure where you get your information???

Barron

Uhhhhhhh, dude. for the last time, I quoted a passage from that wikipedia link. This is the 'primary' source that was given. It says:

And I ask for more information, and you castrate me, telling me that everything is a fact and I should just accept it? I mean, what the f&*#. Simply put, if you held gold in 1933, you didn't lose it, or so says what I'm reading. I challenge you to come up with some kind of academic pieces on this issue, since seizures of a commodity is sure to be a talking point, and you come up with nothing.

wouldn't the burdon of proof be on me to prove that the moon landing was fake or never happened? even though i would be "proving a negative" ... there is still evidence i could reference to prove my point. I could make the argument that our atmosphere is too hot and would melt the space ship. i could make the arguement that we couldn't build a space ship that would hold enough gas to make it to the moon. I could make the arguement that the shuttle is too small to hold enough air for the astronauts, etc.[/quote]

Burden of proof would be on the people who say the moon landing happened. But thats easy, I just forward you to www.badastronomy.com, which explains the entire process as well as addresses all the tin foil hats concerns. So where's my gold link? I'm still waiting


FOR THE LAST F*&# TIME I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAPPENED OR NOT BUT THE ONLY LINK GIVEN TO ME HAD THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH WRITTEN IN IT WHICH SAYS THAT NOT A WHOLE LOT OF GOLF CONFISCATION TOOK PLACE.

So I ask for more, and your 'proof' is that everyone in this thread believes it took place (looool). What am I to believe as a rational human being?

I'm more interested in finding the source that convinced you the first time around. I take it you did some research, looking at primary and secondary resources, right?

The interesting part is, when I search for this, literally every search point seems to be a RON PAUL 08' blog. I see links like the free republic etc. There's only 5 pages of searches and not a whole lot of primary information. Obviously you must have seen it, right?

This isn't a semantics argument, how can you say that? We're both in agreeance about the definition of 'confiscation', and I'm pretty sure we're on the same page with 'gold'. Also note this:

----------------------------

l correct

Actually, I have studied the great depression and I've read "The Power of Gold". I'm not an economist but I do have a degree in finance. There's no gut reaction here, I hate the way the government works as much as anyone. I wasn't surprised at all that a law exists. What I am surprised at is how unenforced it seems. still waiting for someone to address that

First of all, drop the handwaving that this is about semantics, I know you want to sound smart but clearly thats not going on here (and you're welcoming to show me the definitions you're disagreeing with). Would that 'bunch of other nonsense' be logical fallacies by any chance? Yeah, why do we even have those...

My initial reactions was nothing, it wouldn't surprise me for the US government to do this. I'm seriously waiting here for anything, but you have to admit, its quite suspeicious being in my shoes. Here I am, all ready for an interesting conspiracy theory, and umm, I get a sandwich without a whole lot of meat. Maybe I should shut up and believe, because that kind of thinking never got us into trouble, right?

Sorry Barron it sounds like you know more about this than me, I really don't know that much about Peter Schiff to be honest... i have watched a lot of him on TV...
I was under the impression that Peter Schiff ran a brokerage firm... i didn't realize he actually actively managed funds...
can you link me to the performance / prospectus of his funds? Do his funds trade on a stock exchange? What are his management fees like for running the fund?

Still my point remains, sure he gave pretty poor advice in 2007-2008 and his clients sure sufffered for letting someone else decide how to invest their money instead of doing their own due diligence... but otoh the dow didn't fare so well either... and at least his fund won't go to zero since it has gold in it...

could you give the breakdown of his fund? Is it 25% gold / 25% oil / 25% foreign stocks / 25% short the dollar? What are the returns of his fund over the past 5 years? 10 years? Does he own physical gold and physical oil? Or does he own ETF GLD and an oil ETF?

Sorry I also admit that last post wrt Schiff was kind of all over the place... but certainly not to the point of incomprehensibility i hope!

Either way, funds are for donx.... physical assets are the only way to go clearly... if you don't hold it you don't own it

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/bu....html?_r=1&hpw

IMF selling up some bonds?

"Though the fund has been authorized for decades to raise cash by selling bonds, officials have never done so because they wanted to avoid what amounts to short-term borrowing."


--

"If you don't trust gold, do you trust the logic of taking a beautiful pine tree, worth about $4,000 - $5,000, cutting it up, turning it into pulp and then paper, putting some ink on it and then calling it one billion dollars?"

Kenneth J. Gerbino

sorry to be posting a link to ronpaulforums but the link to this article doesn't work any more... a lot of articles get mysteriously taken down if you pay close attention... probably 25% of the linkns i post in this thread mysteriously no longer work...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190238


(SINGAPORE) The big surprise in China's revelation last Friday that it has secretly added over 450 tonnes of gold to its foreign reserves over the past six years may be the fact that it hasn't bought far more than that.

Now, many analysts say the rare public disclosure may be a prelude to Beijing accelerating its purchases - possibly from big government agencies or central banks - as it worries about the erosion of its US$2 trillion cash pile.

In the first public comment on top-secret gold holdings in years, Hu Xiaolian, head of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (Safe), told Xinhua news agency that the country's reserves had risen by 454 tonnes from 600 tonnes since 2003. He said the gold had been purchased from domestic production.

The figure confirmed what many gold bugs have suspected for years - that Beijing has been quietly amassing reserves. The surprise is actually how conservative its approach has been.

As a proportion foreign exchange reserves, which have risen five-fold over the same period, gold now stands at a tiny 1.6 per cent, versus 1.7 per cent in 2003, according to Reuters calculations, suggesting Chinese disenchantment with the dollar has yet to significantly influence its buying patterns.

But things may be changing, and a quickening pace of gold buying would lend considerable support to prices that have threatened to stall at around US$900 an ounce - unless, as many analysts expect, it buys the gold through private channels. The IMF has approved selling just over 400 tonnes of its gold.

'Central banks will go straight to China rather than mess about or spook the market. China will be a ready buyer and pay a decent price,' said Jonathan Barratt, managing director of Commodity Broking Services in Sydney.

For years, China has used its trade surplus to buy up US treasury bills - effectively paying for the consumer boom that collapsed last year - but worries about inflation and the slide in the dollar mean Beijing wants to diversify into other assets.

More recently, China suggested a move toward a world currency system linked to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) special drawing rights, an idea dismissed last month by senior Obama adviser Paul Volcker as not practical.

'In terms of China, there's substantial currency and debt risk with the current holdings of reserves, so this reflects an ongoing pattern of diversification that we've seen across both public and private sector institutional funds,' said Daniel Wills, senior analyst at ETF Securities in London.

Gold prices rose a modest one per cent after the news last Friday, but few dealers expects Beijing to abandon its discreet approach and embark on a buying spree.

The announcement that Beijing was sitting on 1,054 tonnes of gold bullion, up 75 per cent in the past six years, pushed China up to the fifth place in the table of gold-holding nations.

In some regards, the sum is sizeable, about the same amount that Europe's central banks and the IMF sell each year as they gradually and publicly destock


-------------

How do the mods feel about me copy / pasting entire articles into this thread??? I'm not trying to steal copyrights or pass this stuff off as my own, I just worry that the link might not work any more and it would be good to have some of these articles archived somewhere before they're edited or the links no longer work any more.

My feeling on the matter is that once a major newspaper publishes an article it should be freely spread around and considered in public domain, but I'm not sure these mainstream media companies feel he same way or not

-------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FywT-txGuss

thought some of you might get a kick out of this 1934 political cartoon...

just coincidence that Obama went to Harvard and Columbia...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/37877644-3...nclick_check=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph875XU9fJ4

the above two links are : fed employees saying the optimal interest rate for the US is negative five percent, and Peter Schiff's comments

http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...ainmenu-43/915

This article is tracking where our tax TARP money is going, this is only the money that has been admitted to : all the major players are there of course.

I think 1934 onwards worked out pretty well?

well... the depression lasted another 7 years... followed by a world war... so i wouldn't exactly say that things worked out from after 1934. the quality of life for americans really didn't improve until after 1945, over a decade later.

in fact, the depression was probably at its worst in 1936 and 1937. the US economy eventually managed to recover despite FDR and the new deal.

Good god. This thread is brutal and I like gold.

I would love to see the figure you have to make this conclusion.

Art I know you're too lazy to read through some links about this subject, as it seems like you hardly read through any of the links in this thread. I know a lot of people find this subject boring or simply don't have the time to read through a bunch of links, so I can't say I blame you. But if you ever want to know what really happened during the great depression instead of what they told you at the brainwashing camps, I'd highly recommend you check these out:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_4_higgs.pdf

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

if you only look at government numbers and figures... you would conclude that the great depression was at it's worst in 1933-34. However, if you were to look at the quality of life of most Americans... the depression was probably at its worst more around 1936-37. Despite the fact that the DOW was not at it's lowest, and not all figures bottomed at this time.... people who lived through the depression would have told you that things were still very bad in 1936-37, and that it wasn't until after the war when the quality of life began to improve.

The common belief amoung people these days is that FDR came in and made the sitution better and pulled the country out of the depression. That is wrong. FDR made things worse and the depression got even worse under his watch because of his new deal programs.

It's amazing to see how people these days think that FDR was such a great president who saved the country from depression. After he got into office, the depression lasted another decade... during which time, conditions got even worse than they were under Hoover.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30398682/

The World Health Organization raised its pandemic alert for swine flu to the second highest level Wednesday, meaning that it believes a global outbreak of the disease is imminent.

Just to be sure, gold goes up when everyone dies right?

1976 Swine Flu Propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASibLqwVbsk

Congressman Paul on the Recent Swine Flu Scare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo

I agree with his general thought that the whole thing is a little over the top, but his "only one person died from the swine flu in 1974 while 25 died from the vaccine" is pretty stupid.

how many people in the US have died? this was april 27th and i think we've had much more since then.

in any case, he's 100000% right lol.

spend all swine flu $ on something that freaking matters...PLEASE

Barron

The thing is, you contain it now, its cheap. If you don't, it becomes expensive. WHO is doing the right thing.