.
so today i got an email from an old friend, the pertinent portion of which i've reproduced below
which depressed me unutterably.
why? because this particular friend (let's call her "babe"), as far from stupid as she happens to be, and despite the screaming evidence all about her to the contrary
still feels the need to self-deprecate and apologize for taking an eminently rational step towards protecting her hard-earned wealth.
as i sat there and thought about why the stigma surrounding gold could still possibly exist in america, i realized that for many it probably all comes down to its association with
see, like so many of my friends, the babe in question happens to be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. and while in other circumstances i generally consider that condition nothing more than a minor, benign and often amusing derangement, i'm now realizing that it and the knee-jerk prejudices it breeds is probably going to doom many of her ilk to future and unnecessary poverty. many, but thankfully not all.
you did the right thing, babe.
6 comments:
Well, I'm still not convinced.
Do you ever think gold will go below $1000 per ounce again?
I mean, if you look at the cyclical history of gold, it goes up and then a bubble of gold mania is created and then it deflates and deflates badly.
I do agree that people should have a diversified portfolio of investments. But that does not mean putting all of it in gold.
That's exactly what this mystery babe was worried about, NS. It's the thirty year trend line.
I'd say next year's elections will have a significant impact on the long-term price trend. But given what's going on right now, and given the unwillingness of politicians in either major party to take the steps necessary to save the dollar from serious devaluation, I wouldn't worry about precious metals dropping anytime soon.
Happy to say I had a lot of influence in "babe"'s decision. I tried to convince her she had just made a vote of no confidence in the economic policies of the Democratic party, but she disagreed (though she wouldn't say why).
These are very difficult times economically and politically and the two are connected.
The sharp partisan polarization in Washington makes it hard to agree on anything. I do not hold out much hope that the partisans on the super-committee are going to be able to accomplish much.
Since I'm for the home team, I will add that I think the tea party folks are nuts and that the Republican party is as conservative right now as any major party in any industrialized country today. It is quite extraordinary to see just how far to the right the Republican party has gone over the past 30 years.
But, the last remarks are certainly unnecessary to conclude that: 1) there is gridlock; and 2) whatever the cause, it is unlikely to be solved anytime soon.
The problem economically is pretty obvious -- the economy is in bad shape generally. I do not think that most people understand how close we came to another great depression. The economy was really that bad. It is not unusual, therefore, that it will take time for the economy to get better and pick up steam.
The risk of a double dip recession is real. But that is because everyone has got a bug up their ass about the deficit and cutting government spending in the short term actually increases the chances of a second recession.
Yes, the long terms finances of the United States have to be fixed. But that was true 10 years ago and 20 years ago. What happened during the Bush years? Essentially, we spent our seed corn and wasted a decade when we could have been attempting to tackle the larger long-term fiscal problems. You can't have massive tax cuts three times and just put in on a credit card and say that is fiscally responsible.
Gold's price rise reflect the crisis of confidence in the institutions of government and the strength of the economy.
But, does anyone seriously believe that we will be needing gold to purchase a loaf of bread? Go back to the great depression or the several depressions/contractions that existed in the United States during the Nineteenth Century. In none of those situations were circumstances so dire that people were forced to bartering. There was no wholesale collapse of the entire economy (and having the currency locked into gold made the contractions much worse because of a tight monetary policy).
Wow, NS, that's an interesting conclusion: "Gold's price rise reflect the crisis of confidence in the institutions of government and the strength of the economy."
Just the opposite, in fact. The rising price of gold reflects a complete lack of confidence in the institutions of government to take the steps necessary to protect the value of the dollar (and the steps necessary to ensure that there's any future value in the stocks of American -- or foreign, for that matter -- corporations).
No, we may not need gold to purchase a loaf of bread -- not directly. But it's likely to be one of the few stores of value over the next few years, particularly if the "home team" doesn't suffer devastating losses in 2012.
But probably still even if they do -- the whole "tea party is crazy" trope has taken hold, and it's certain that the Boehners of the world are not going to do what's needed.
Haven't figured out the "three times" on massive tax cuts. Are you talking about the two tax cuts Bush signed in to law, which led to higher government revenues, or to the Republicans ramming the maintenance of current tax rates down Obama's throat?
As far as the Republican party's placement on the political spectrum is concerned: They're certainly farther to the right than any party I can think of. What I find disappointing about that is that:
a) the definitions of "right" and "conservative" have come to mean many things that I don't associate with the right; and
b) it's pretty fucking pathetic that this is considered radically conservative.
Leaving aside that Cheney said the infamous words "deficits don't matter" and that Reagan ushered in (what were at the time) the worst deficits in history, I too find the current partisan bickering worse than usual. A columnist recently mentioned that it's not the old "fight during the day, share a drink w/ your enemies at night" good times that actually resulted in real compromise; the people in each party truly seem to loathe each other. So I am diversifying as much as I can, which means a small percentage in metals, AND money in other investments as well - not abandonment of my lefties! :)
Also think it's funny that one of the most "to the right" men I know is currently holding a dildo... for reasons I will not reveal here. He he.
C'mon people, smile on your brother everybody get together...
"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal."
"It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one’s product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one’s demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one’s product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.
"There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property."
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . ."
-- You know who
Post a Comment