Invest in uranium NOW!

stumuz · Post by **stumuz** » 26 Feb 2007, 10:09

I think, I am no expert, that gold is an excess wealth carrier, gold was always valuable in the past because people knew how to hunt, fish etc and could have their labour exploited by a few educated exploiters. We have now a huge population who are completly useless at survival,aka, living , so Vortex's razor blades etc, will be far more in demand to the hordes of the useless than Aurora's gold stocks.
Want a good pension for the future? Energy production on a local scale, not for selling hot water or KWH's but for selling the value products which the power will fructify. deep huh?

SILVERHARP2 · Post by **SILVERHARP2** » 26 Feb 2007, 14:06

biffvernon wrote:The Zimbabwean with gold under her mattress has the opportunity to buy food because the rest of the world is still rich enough to want the gold.

Gold loses its utility when there is a global collapse of economy not a local collapse.

oh come on, gold would lose it's utility if a large enough asteroid hit the world. You can't focus on the "beyond" worst case scenario and use that to back up a point of view. If you think there will be a global econimc collapse then the last thing you should be worried about is PO as there will be little demand for oil.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 26 Feb 2007, 14:17

clv101 wrote:
biffvernon wrote:The Zimbabwean with gold under her mattress has the opportunity to buy food because the rest of the world is still rich enough to want the gold.

Gold loses its utility when there is a global collapse of economy not a local collapse.
I expect "the rest of the world" will always be rich enough to want gold... always has been, most likely always will be.

I'm with Ian... and even if we did go back to the dark ages, wasn't gold valuable even then?

Well, before you get the gold, you better organize and feed some heavily armed guys to protect it for you. If you dont have that, someone who have will end up holding your gold. At least that was the way it was done in the good old days. For a simple pesant holding gold without belonging to some kind of protection racket, the gold actually put him in more danger.

As pure investment on a 1-5 year scale, gold might protect some wealth from inflation, but I still think it's deeply immoral. Why not go for child porn or methamphetamine if it's just the money which is attractive?

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 26 Feb 2007, 14:23

SILVERHARP2 wrote:If you think there will be a global econimc collapse then the last thing you should be worried about is PO as there will be little demand for oil.

Actually, this is my primary suspicion for a scenario. Most people might very well experience the downslope as a series of successively deeper economical crises, not hearing a word about "Peak Oil" or such.

ianryder · Post by **ianryder** » 26 Feb 2007, 14:38

MacG wrote:Why not go for child porn or methamphetamine if it's just the money which is attractive?

I hear what you're saying Mac but it's a tricky one to be judgemental about unless you live in a mudhut and your PC is made of bamboo you grew in the garden...the garden you've didn't kill any insects or worms to create. And you're PC is powered by you pedalling a bamboo power generator, powered by you eating sadly-deceased things that happen to fall around you through no fault of your own. Apart from some worms have starved due to you stealing their dinner. Shame on you

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 26 Feb 2007, 14:47

ianryder wrote:
MacG wrote:Why not go for child porn or methamphetamine if it's just the money which is attractive?
I hear what you're saying Mac but it's a tricky one to be judgemental about unless you live in a mudhut and your PC is made of bamboo you grew in the garden...the garden you've didn't kill any insects or worms to create. And you're PC is powered by you pedalling a bamboo power generator, powered by you eating sadly-deceased things that happen to fall around you through no fault of your own. Apart from some worms have starved due to you stealing their dinner. Shame on you

If nature gets damaged because I eat food and want bicycle tyres, why cause more damage by encouraging mining of something useless? Such as gold?

ianryder · Post by **ianryder** » 26 Feb 2007, 15:02

I take your point. I don't own gold by the way other than a wedding ring so just playing devil's advocate

SILVERHARP2 · Post by **SILVERHARP2** » 26 Feb 2007, 16:13

MacG wrote:
SILVERHARP2 wrote:If you think there will be a global econimc collapse then the last thing you should be worried about is PO as there will be little demand for oil.
Actually, this is my primary suspicion for a scenario. Most people might very well experience the downslope as a series of successively deeper economical crises, not hearing a word about "Peak Oil" or such.

I don't disagree with anything you say there, but the other poster seemed to be implying that from a point X presumably in our life time that global trade will cease to exist and there will be little or no industry. I just don't see it that way and I owe it to myself and family to take reasonable measures to potect our wealth from the troubles ahead. If owning gold or investing in Uranium is bad for the planet, then so be it. As far as I am concerned I am 1/6 billionth of the problem so what I do legally as an individual is irrelevelant from a planetary perspective but is highly relavent from a personal one.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 26 Feb 2007, 22:26

SILVERHARP2 wrote:
MacG wrote: Well, at least you can eat fish and meat. Why mine and stash gold? Can you eat it?
Maybe if you could ask someone in Zimbabwe who managed to stash a few gold coins away the same question you might get a different answer

Why stash gold in Zim? Pounds would do a,most just as well. Or ?. Or even $. Just because gold have gained a little in the last month, $ would still be a huuuge advantage over Zim funny money.

According to your line of thought, gold is supposed to be a hedge against a worldwide collapse. Right? But worldwide collapses were improbable? SOME countries -and currencies- would survive and thrive? Or?

Why bother with gold then? If you could just as well identify a couple of sound currencies? Like the ChF maybe? Or even (shudder) the ??

If it comes to true Global Collapse, I would rather stick with salt than gold. Maybe a small bit of silver because of it's antibacterial properties, but that's about it.

SILVERHARP2 · Post by **SILVERHARP2** » 27 Feb 2007, 09:02

[quote="MacG
According to your line of thought, gold is supposed to be a hedge against a worldwide collapse. Right? But worldwide collapses were improbable? SOME countries -and currencies- would survive and thrive? Or?

Why bother with gold then? If you could just as well identify a couple of sound currencies? Like the ChF maybe? Or even (shudder) the ??

[/quote]

Not a hedge against world wide collapse but a hedge against a flight away from paper assets to tangible assets. The average gold investor treats gold as the cash part of the portfolio, maybe 20%-30% the rest may get invested in shares in gold/energy or alternative energy. I have no idea if peak oil for instance will set off a massive inflation in certain currencies or a deflation. But I know if I own some gold it can't go bankrupt. From a US perspective holding euros maybe nearly as good as owning gold but I would expect all currencies to depreciate in terms of gold to some extent

Pippa · Post by **Pippa** » 27 Feb 2007, 10:14

If we had continued to tie our fiat currencies to gold we wouldn't be in any way near as much mess as we are either financially or environmentally.

If we had continued to believe in the real things of earth (gold is one after all as well as fish, salt, wood, etc) then we wouldn't have fallen prey as we have to governments printing more and more money, which in collaboration with cheap and abundant energy allowed the proliferation and manufacture of milliions and millions of worthless bits and bobs, mountains of pollution (far in excess to the damage done by gold mining - which I know is bad but by comparison - pifferling).

Sadly, we are where we are and somehow or other, we've got to do the best from now on.

How about turning the ethical question on its head, say you've managed to save yourself a stash of ?10,000. Is is better to put this money in the bank (where you know that you will then enable the bank to create ?90,000 out of thin air to "lend" to its next new customer who will then pay interest on ?100,000 - being the ?90,000 created plus YOUR ?10,000 at a cost to him/her of ?5250, assume a 25 year interest only mortgage with the same interest rate thoughout and the individual pays out ?131,250 plus the ?100,000 borrowed, AND IT DIDN'T EVEN BELONG TO THE BANK IN THE FIRST PLACE. What will the customer do with the money borrowed apart from getting more personal debt, how much more pollution and destruction will result from the loan?

As an alternative your could invest the ?10,000 in a pile of salt.

Or maybe put the ?10,000 into gold.

Personally, I would prefer gold to the bank or salt for ethical, storage and potential profit in the short/medium term.

ianryder · Post by **ianryder** » 02 Mar 2007, 18:02

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/02/markets ... 2007030212

Gold not looking too hot...I know, it'll soon go through roof

Jitters in the financial markets pummeled gold futures early on Friday, following sharp losses in the previous two sessions, as funds continued to unwind positions in precious metals because of the global equities sell-off.

Gold is often used by investors as a safe haven in times of financial uncertainties, but analysts said that this time some funds opted for liquidity and to pay off stock losses as a wave of risk aversion swept through global markets this week.