I think we can summarize the articles author as :

Ronnie 666 said:I think we can summarize the articles author as :
http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/1302_clueless.jpg![]()
TheEnd said:And now I'm really wondering what I am doing on this site???
wrcmad said:Investment decisions are, however, based on "whatever the next guy is willing to pay for them", and projections (best guestimates) of this number. Simple demand/supply.
wrcmad said:I don't buy the theory that the fundamentals of gold are based conveniently on one single monetary supply figure of a chosen nation
wrcmad said:Stupid? What stupid?
I can confirm that.trew said:Neither do I, but commodities (which includes stuff like oil and copper, not just gold) do have a cost of production and there is definitely a measurable physical supply and demand.
Forecasting future supply and demand obviously involves estimates but then so does any other business.
The problem is that some talk alike 'the market' is a person or so. It's not. It's a situation. It can't think. It knows nothing. It's people that act in this situation. And price movements unrelated to production, can only be due to the people buying/selling existing stocks, in such a way that ones gain has to imply anothers pain, and the bigger the price movements, the bigger the gain & pain.Credit Crunch said:No. 7 is a classic !
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/square/000/007/242/no shit sherlock.gif
The suggestion here is that "the market" is all knowing and all powerful. Bullshit, if this was the case no stock would ever move in price because "the market" had always valued it correctly.
Exactly. I agree.trew said:wrcmad said:Investment decisions are, however, based on "whatever the next guy is willing to pay for them", and projections (best guestimates) of this number. Simple demand/supply.
You mean like Apple trying to figure out how many iphones and ipads they might sell and what to price them at.
They wouldn't consider the actual cost of production at all ?
Would they sell at iphone for $200 if it costs them $300 to make one?
wrcmad said:I don't buy the theory that the fundamentals of gold are based conveniently on one single monetary supply figure of a chosen nation
Neither do I, but commodities (which includes stuff like oil and copper, not just gold) do have a cost of production and there is definitely a measurable physical supply and demand.
Forecasting future supply and demand obviously involves estimates but then so does any other business.
Credit Crunch said:No. 7 is a classic !
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/square/000/007/242/no shit sherlock.gif
The suggestion here is that "the market" is all knowing and all powerful. Bullshit, if this was the case no stock would ever move in price because "the market" had always valued it correctly.
Pirocco said:There is only one fundamental.
The one where you inform yourself, to act better, as to not pay too much, or sell for too less.
But all cycles eventually turn; even the Great Depression ended. So, too, did this recession.
Case silver.wrcmad said:Pirocco said:There is only one fundamental.
The one where you inform yourself, to act better, as to not pay too much, or sell for too less.
I am interested, how do you determine what price is too much or too little?
What reference do you use to conclude price is too high or too low?
Old Codger said:...and if a buyer of gold and silver does not sell, he has not made a loss!
+1Phiber said:Old Codger said:...and if a buyer of gold and silver does not sell, he has not made a loss!
Not even the opportunity cost?
+2wrcmad said:+1Phiber said:Old Codger said:...and if a buyer of gold and silver does not sell, he has not made a loss!
Not even the opportunity cost?
denial.