[cobran20]

wulfgar, on 23 May 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

No, it only reached $1900. But I was expecting it to fall back to $1600, what you term a correction.

Seems Armstrong is expecting gold to peak around 2015. My guess it will take off early 2013 and peak before the end of that year. Then it's all over red rover.

You made your $2K prediction on the 22/8/2011, when gold had already reached US$1896. It peaked at US$1920 soon after. Hardly a successful long term forecast like Armstrong's.

[wulfgar]

cobran20, on 23 May 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

You made your $2K prediction on the 22/8/2011, when gold had already reached US$1896. It peaked at US$1920 soon after. Hardly a successful long term forecast like Armstrong's.

You miss the point, I excepted gold to go back to $1600, I'm hardly concerned with what the frothy price is going to be. Gold had only surpassed 1600 for a number of weeks. You're sort of thinking obsesses over momentary prices as being significant.

What was more significant for 1980, a peak price of 850 for a day or two or the fact that the average price for the whole year was $615.

What's the average price been since September last year?

[cobran20]

wulfgar, on 23 May 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

You miss the point, I excepted gold to go back to $1600, I'm hardly concerned with what the frothy price is going to be. Gold had only surpassed 1600 for a number of weeks. You're sort of thinking obsesses over momentary prices as being significant.

What was more significant for 1980, a peak price of 850 for a day or two or the fact that the average price for the whole year was $615.

What's the average price been since September last year?

I think you miss the point that you're knocking Armstrong's long term forecasts when he is usually on the mark, rather than a one-off fluke by others!

[wulfgar]

cobran20, on 23 May 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

I think you miss the point that you're knocking Armstrong's long term forecasts when he is usually on the mark, rather than a one-off fluke by others!

No, what started you off today was this.

Quote

Armstrong suffers from the same malady as roubini, neither of these two fruits can comprehend that gold is money because it reacts to interest rates. Currently the FED is devaluing the USD at 8.5% p.a. while paying the creditor 0.010% interest. If you want to see gold tumble, let's see them raise rates....but they won't.

and but what I'm referrring too is his current article.

[cobran20]

wulfgar, on 23 May 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Armstrong suffers from the same malady as roubini, neither of these two fruits can comprehend that gold is money because it reacts to interest rates. Currently the FED is devaluing the USD at 8.5% p.a. while paying the creditor 0.010% interest. If you want to see gold tumble, let's see them raise rates....but they won't.

If you look at the attached, it clearly shows that whilst US interest rates fell for over 20 years, so did gold. Haven't you been telling us that higher interest rates are required for gold to fall? I'd say that the current rise in gold would most likely peak when Ben & his fellow merry central bankers switch off the printing presses as well as having sovereign stability in the US & Europe.

Attached File(s)

•  1.jpg (257.36K)
  Number of downloads: 3

[wulfgar]

cobran20, on 23 May 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

If you look at the attached, it clearly shows that whilst US interest rates fell for over 20 years, so did gold. Haven't you been telling us that higher interest rates are required for gold to fall? I'd say that the current rise in gold would most likely peak when Ben & his fellow merry central bankers switch off the printing presses as well as having sovereign stability in the US & Europe.

My case since day one has been for most of that time the price was fixed!!! Just as the POG was fixed at $35 from 1934 til the late 60's.

These two statements ring a bell?

My case has been since about 2005 the FED has ran out of the physical gold necessary to keep the price fixed.

This statement ring a bell?

Freely floating gold will show the effect of interest rates, this is something the central banks would prefer remained hidden.

There is a reason for this. If gold remain fixed at say $35 then there isn't much reason to prefer gold over the fiat which can be banked and pay interest in the shorter term. However now the rate is 0.010%, there is little reason to prefer fiat over gold for shorter term liquidity. And when it comes to the long term rates, banked fiat is a loss because of devaluation over time.

Hiding the monetary condition of gold is numero uno on the central banker to do list and Armstrong falls for it!

[cobran20]

wulfgar, on 23 May 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

My case has been since about 2005 the FED has ran out of the physical gold necessary to keep the price fixed.

This statement ring a bell?

It certainly is your case ... and the hard evidence is? After all, if you're going to discard Armstrong views (that of somebody who knows well how the markets work), then you have to present solid evidence to the contrary. Have you got an independent audit of how much physical gold is held by the FED?

[wulfgar]

cobran20, on 23 May 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

It certainly is your case ... and the hard evidence is? After all, if you're going to discard Armstrong views (that of somebody who knows well how the markets work), then you have to present solid evidence to the contrary. Have you got an independent audit of how much physical gold is held by the FED?

Now you're just being a loonie, contact your therapist! They won't let Ron Paul in to check!

It's claimed the FED held 13800 tons in the early 90's. Going by the photo shoot of 2004, the FED held 1,000 to 2,000 tons of gold. The argument is the FED was dumping gold on the market at rates of up to 1,500 tons per annum from the mid nineties to suppress the price.

In the 80's they did the opposite, pulling gold off the market and vaulting it to maintain a higher price.

[cobran20]

wulfgar, on 23 May 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Now you're just being a loonie, contact your therapist! They won't let Ron Paul in to check!

It's claimed the FED held 13800 tons in the early 90's. Going by the photo shoot of 2004, the FED held 1,000 to 2,000 tons of gold. The argument is the FED was dumping gold on the market at rates of up to 1,500 tons per annum from the mid nineties to suppress the price.

In the 80's they did the opposite, pulling gold off the market and vaulting it to maintain a higher price.

ie. no solid evidence to your thesis?