ryph why did you unload some of your gold at 800

[ytcracker]

this shit is retarded how the fuck is gold so high

[ytcracker]

Gold $988.30 $989.30 2.00

this is a serious problem with the economy

[forty]

sell your house and build a golden hut, it will be worth double in the next year

[ytcracker]

nah im seriously worried

[ryph]

to place money into a 4x leveraged trading acct. now i get 4x to my money, not 1x. and i time it so i can quickly take advantage of any central bank raids on the gold price.
yest was a perfect example, and yes i made a killing backing the truck up yest:




gotta love the square formation, LOL! thanks for the cheap gold assholes

[ytcracker]

yea but if the dollar pees all over itself 4 x 0 = 0 arent you worried about the money

[ryph]

yea but if the dollar pees all over itself 4 x 0 = 0 arent you worried about the money

it wont crash to 0. somewhere around ~50 on the us index, the powers that be will come in and put a halt to its descent. gold cover clause.

[TrichomeKid]

nah im seriously worried

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4axRYJymHI

[awol]

That's how you get ahead in this world now...

[ryph]

just be worried about having your bank where them dollars are in going belly up

[ryph]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4axRYJymHI

welcome to the forum, yes this among other things, is climaxing together into a 'perfect storm' (so to speak) to make 2010/11 one fuck of a year. economically, socially and geopolitically.

[sn1per]

People are just scared, besides doesn't gold just follow inflation anyways?

[hairetsu]

and a depression comes and they take all ye gold.

[sn1per]

Gold was fun for my people for awhile, we're mainly about the diamonds now.

[josegarcias]

Golden rule: metal's a dud over long haul



With gold streaking toward $1,000 (U.S.) an ounce, now may seem like an odd time to come out and say this.

But somebody has to, so here goes: Gold is a lousy investment. In fact, it may be one of the worst investments you could ever make.

Now, before you fill my in-box with hate mail, let's look at the facts: Although gold has its moments in the sun, like now, over long periods – we're talking really long periods – it's a total dud.

But don't take my word for it.

In his book, Stocks for the Long Run, Wharton Finance Professor Jeremy Siegel compared the real (inflation-adjusted) returns of stocks, bonds, gold and other asset classes from 1802 through 2006.

Result: Stocks won, hands-down. Over the 204-year period studied, $1 invested in the stock market grew to $755,163, including reinvested dividends. That's the real return, remember. If you don't adjust for inflation, the $1 would have grown to a staggering $12.7-million.

Now, let's look at gold. If you get squeamish at the sight of truly horrific investment returns, now would be a good time to turn away.

If you'd put that same $1 into gold, your investment would have grown to … ready? … $1.95. Without adjusting for inflation, your $1 would be worth a whole $32.84. In other words, in exchange for waiting more than two centuries, you'd almost have enough money for an entire month of basic cable.

Except for one problem: You'd be dead.

“In the long run, gold offers investors protection against inflation, but little else,” Mr. Siegel concluded.

“Whatever hedging property precious metals possess, holding these assets will exert a considerable drag on the return of a long-term investor's portfolio.”

Still not convinced gold is a bad deal? Let's look at how it's fared more recently.

In a report last month, two Merrill Lynch investment strategists compared the performance of 10 asset classes over rolling one-, three-, five- and 10-year periods from 1970 to 2007.

Care to guess which asset class came in last? Hint: It rhymes with mould.

“With the exception of gold, investors had little chance of losing money in our selected asset classes over 10-year time periods. Of the asset classes studied, none (except gold) generated a negative return over 10-year periods,” wrote Richard Bernstein and Kari Pinkernell.

But, you say, the period Merrill studied included the huge runup – and subsequent collapse – of gold prices in the 1980s, so of course gold will look bad.

Okay, so let's look at the period from 1990 to 2007. Same thing: “Gold offered the worst risk-reward potential,” the Merrill strategists concluded.

There was one silver lining for gold: During the 1970s, it was the superior investment, beating real estate, growth stocks, value stocks, small stocks, bonds, you name it.

Something else to keep in mind about gold is that, for all the talk about it hitting a record, it's still miles away from its all-time high if you take into account inflation. In today's dollars, the 1980 peak of $850 an ounce works out to about $2,200 – more than double yesterday's close of $984.20 Give it a few more years, and then we can start talking about records.

One more thing about gold: Unlike a lot of stocks, it doesn't pay a dividend. So not only are you making zero income now, but if gold ever falls off a cliff again, you won't be getting any cheques in the mail to soothe your pain.

So should you invest in gold? That's your choice. You could make a killing if the momentum stays on your side. Or you could lose a bundle if the party suddenly stops.

But if history means anything, the longer you hold gold, the worse off you'll be.

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/serv.../Business/home

[son]

ryph is the smartest person alive

[ryph]

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/serv.../Business/home

and i retort with: http://www.gata.org/files/GATA-AD-01-29-2008_lrg.jpg

it has been a bad investment because of price suppression. now think this one through, when the scheme finally unravels, can you imagine the rate at which gold will explode? no neither can i, but i can promise you itll surprise EVERY mainstream person (think beach ball being held underwater scenario). they will call for bubbles in gold, but ill just add on any dips. gold is not going to spike and then come down in a matter of days like in the 80s. invest in gold with confidence.