canasia.org

Arizona Coin Collector < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message FROM: http://biz.yahoo.com/wallstreet/080503/sb120976373490763575_id.html?.v=5 WallStreet Journal Precious-Coin Market May Lose Its Luster From a coin collector's viewpoint, precious coins don't necessarily equate to gold coins. Gold bullion coins are most of what the author's point seems to be about. As the price of gold is dropping, surely something will happen in the world to cause it to shoot up again, and anyone whos saves this article can trash it as obsolete. Current price listings and trends always change. That part should be understood as a given in reading analysis articles like this. There was a lot more to the article that won't quickly (or ever) become obsolete. +The WSJ, Forbes, Fortune and many other financial journals publish a +wide variety of articles on many forms of investment. These articles +are both pro and con . Thus, these publications always have +something to fall back on later, after some change happens, to prove +that they were right or correct. What makes you think that WSJ pretends to stake a claim to always being right in any news reporting or even in market analysis columns like this? That's not the way it works in professional journalism - just with certain posters on blogs and newsgroups. +Gold will do O.K. in both a deflationary or inflationary environment. It usually does better with inflation than during deflation or stable money values, where often the best you can say is that it never goes to zero (or anywhere near it) and still is easily transportable in relatively small amounts. As an investment it's a good hedge against inflation but other than that it's a mediocre long-term holding unless the first three priorities in your investing strategies are security, security, and security, while projected ROI is way down the list. +That's more than you can say for the Wall Street Journal, as it has been recently bought out and inevitably a large number of staffers will get fired. Q. Which proves what WRT this thread? A. It proves nothing, it was just an attempt on your part to discredit the source. ++If you enjoy believing the main stream media, that's fine.  But don't think that you aren't getting a biased viewpoint there - you are. They have an agenda too, and apparently you are a undiscriminating consumer. First, you have no idea who I am or what I do for a living, so your erroneous suppositions about what I believe and how I judge media coverage are just verbal flatulence. Contrary to your opinionated blathering, while any publisher may have any agenda, it gets expressed mainly on the editorial page and sometimes to a lesser extent in what gets covered or ignored, but not down in the weeds through systematic micromanagement of what all their reporters and columnists actually write.  At that level it's the writer's knowledge and biases that determine the content. ++Gold does O.K. in a deflation because it is the only financial asset that isn't simultaneously another party's liability.  When corporations and individuals start to fail in droves, you will understand what this means, First, I already conceded that it does O.K. in that it doesn't go to zero or anywhere near it during deflation.  Second, you keep steering the conversation to extreme scenarios, which are rare over the course of most investors' lifetimes.  Third, Blue Chip stocks (and their bond equivalents) are relatively decent investment risks since they're unlikely to fall off a cliff in anything short of your extreme disaster scenarios. Fourth, corporations and individuals aren't the only one that can issue obligations. When's the last time that Uncle Sam defaulted on a T-bill or savings bond?  State and local obligations are almost equally secure.  Finally, like any other investment option, the performance of your gold holdings in deflation depends on the a lot of factors, not the least of which is acquisition price.  If you bought at or near an inflation peak - which this may or may not be - by the time gold slides to its new market level you could lose half or more of the value of your gilded piggy bank.  Even in the current slump, housing values have held up far better than that. Bullion gold, whether in coins or bars, has an appropriate but limited place in any investment strategy.  It's not the unalloyed (pun intended) sure-fire, all-purpose investment that you appear to be touting it as.  Like all the others, it has its pro's and con's.

Arizona Coin Collector < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message FROM: http://biz.yahoo.com/wallstreet/080503/sb120976373490763575_id.html?.v=5 WallStreet Journal Precious-Coin Market May Lose Its Luster From a coin collector's viewpoint, precious coins don't necessarily equate to gold coins. Gold bullion coins are most of what the author's point seems to be about. As the price of gold is dropping, surely something will happen in the world to cause it to shoot up again, and anyone whos saves this article can trash it as obsolete. Current price listings and trends always change. That part should be understood as a given in reading analysis articles like this. There was a lot more to the article that won't quickly (or ever) become obsolete. +The WSJ, Forbes, Fortune and many other financial journals publish a +wide variety of articles on many forms of investment. These articles +are both pro and con . Thus, these publications always have +something to fall back on later, after some change happens, to prove +that they were right or correct. What makes you think that WSJ pretends to stake a claim to always being right in any news reporting or even in market analysis columns like this? That's not the way it works in professional journalism - just with certain posters on blogs and newsgroups. +Gold will do O.K. in both a deflationary or inflationary environment. It usually does better with inflation than during deflation or stable money values, where often the best you can say is that it never goes to zero (or anywhere near it) and still is easily transportable in relatively small amounts. As an investment it's a good hedge against inflation but other than that it's a mediocre long-term holding unless the first three priorities in your investing strategies are security, security, and security, while projected ROI is way down the list. +That's more than you can say for the Wall Street Journal, as it has been recently bought out and inevitably a large number of staffers will get fired. Q. Which proves what WRT this thread? A. It proves nothing, it was just an attempt on your part to discredit the source. ++If you enjoy believing the main stream media, that's fine.  But don't think that you aren't getting a biased viewpoint there - you are. They have an agenda too, and apparently you are a undiscriminating consumer. First, you have no idea who I am or what I do for a living, so your erroneous suppositions about what I believe and how I judge media coverage are just verbal flatulence. Contrary to your opinionated blathering, while any publisher may have any agenda, it gets expressed mainly on the editorial page and sometimes to a lesser extent in what gets covered or ignored, but not down in the weeds through systematic micromanagement of what all their reporters and columnists actually write.  At that level it's the writer's knowledge and biases that determine the content. ++Gold does O.K. in a deflation because it is the only financial asset that isn't simultaneously another party's liability.  When corporations and individuals start to fail in droves, you will understand what this means, First, I already conceded that it does O.K. in that it doesn't go to zero or anywhere near it during deflation.  Second, you keep steering the conversation to extreme scenarios, which are rare over the course of most investors' lifetimes.  Third, Blue Chip stocks (and their bond equivalents) are relatively decent investment risks since they're unlikely to fall off a cliff in anything short of your extreme disaster scenarios. Fourth, corporations and individuals aren't the only one that can issue obligations. When's the last time that Uncle Sam defaulted on a T-bill or savings bond?  State and local obligations are almost equally secure.  Finally, like any other investment option, the performance of your gold holdings in deflation depends on the a lot of factors, not the least of which is acquisition price.  If you bought at or near an inflation peak - which this may or may not be - by the time gold slides to its new market level you could lose half or more of the value of your gilded piggy bank.  Even in the current slump, housing values have held up far better than that. Bullion gold, whether in coins or bars, has an appropriate but limited place in any investment strategy.  It's not the unalloyed (pun intended) sure-fire, all-purpose investment that you appear to be touting it as.  Like all the others, it has its pro's and con's.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Whatever you do for a living and the news that you consume aren't directly related. The main stream media represents one relatively solid viewpoint - statist, socialistic and left-leaning. The MSM does occasionally print the odd storyline, just to hold for possibly digging up later, just so they can claim that they are right in all actual outcomes. If that's the only place where you get your news , the your're a damn mushroom - kept in the dark and fed shit. oly

Arizona Coin Collector < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message FROM: http://biz.yahoo.com/wallstreet/080503/sb120976373490763575_id.html?.v=5 WallStreet Journal Precious-Coin Market May Lose Its Luster From a coin collector's viewpoint, precious coins don't necessarily equate to gold coins. Gold bullion coins are most of what the author's point seems to be about. As the price of gold is dropping, surely something will happen in the world to cause it to shoot up again, and anyone whos saves this article can trash it as obsolete. Current price listings and trends always change. That part should be understood as a given in reading analysis articles like this. There was a lot more to the article that won't quickly (or ever) become obsolete. +The WSJ, Forbes, Fortune and many other financial journals publish a +wide variety of articles on many forms of investment. These articles +are both pro and con . Thus, these publications always have +something to fall back on later, after some change happens, to prove +that they were right or correct. What makes you think that WSJ pretends to stake a claim to always being right in any news reporting or even in market analysis columns like this? That's not the way it works in professional journalism - just with certain posters on blogs and newsgroups. +Gold will do O.K. in both a deflationary or inflationary environment. It usually does better with inflation than during deflation or stable money values, where often the best you can say is that it never goes to zero (or anywhere near it) and still is easily transportable in relatively small amounts. As an investment it's a good hedge against inflation but other than that it's a mediocre long-term holding unless the first three priorities in your investing strategies are security, security, and security, while projected ROI is way down the list. +That's more than you can say for the Wall Street Journal, as it has been recently bought out and inevitably a large number of staffers will get fired. Q. Which proves what WRT this thread? A. It proves nothing, it was just an attempt on your part to discredit the source. ++If you enjoy believing the main stream media, that's fine.  But don't think that you aren't getting a biased viewpoint there - you are. They have an agenda too, and apparently you are a undiscriminating consumer. First, you have no idea who I am or what I do for a living, so your erroneous suppositions about what I believe and how I judge media coverage are just verbal flatulence. Contrary to your opinionated blathering, while any publisher may have any agenda, it gets expressed mainly on the editorial page and sometimes to a lesser extent in what gets covered or ignored, but not down in the weeds through systematic micromanagement of what all their reporters and columnists actually write.  At that level it's the writer's knowledge and biases that determine the content. Contrary to YOUR opinionated blathering, you jackass, a publisher's agenda (political or otherwise) affects the reporting of the news, the wording of the articles and the placement and selection of the articles presented.

Arizona Coin Collector < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message FROM: http://biz.yahoo.com/wallstreet/080503/sb120976373490763575_id.html?.v=5 WallStreet Journal Precious-Coin Market May Lose Its Luster From a coin collector's viewpoint, precious coins don't necessarily equate to gold coins. Gold bullion coins are most of what the author's point seems to be about. As the price of gold is dropping, surely something will happen in the world to cause it to shoot up again, and anyone whos saves this article can trash it as obsolete. Current price listings and trends always change. That part should be understood as a given in reading analysis articles like this. There was a lot more to the article that won't quickly (or ever) become obsolete. +The WSJ, Forbes, Fortune and many other financial journals publish a +wide variety of articles on many forms of investment. These articles +are both pro and con . Thus, these publications always have +something to fall back on later, after some change happens, to prove +that they were right or correct. What makes you think that WSJ pretends to stake a claim to always being right in any news reporting or even in market analysis columns like this? That's not the way it works in professional journalism - just with certain posters on blogs and newsgroups. +Gold will do O.K. in both a deflationary or inflationary environment. It usually does better with inflation than during deflation or stable money values, where often the best you can say is that it never goes to zero (or anywhere near it) and still is easily transportable in relatively small amounts. As an investment it's a good hedge against inflation but other than that it's a mediocre long-term holding unless the first three priorities in your investing strategies are security, security, and security, while projected ROI is way down the list. +That's more than you can say for the Wall Street Journal, as it has been recently bought out and inevitably a large number of staffers will get fired. Q. Which proves what WRT this thread? A. It proves nothing, it was just an attempt on your part to discredit the source. ++If you enjoy believing the main stream media, that's fine.  But don't think that you aren't getting a biased viewpoint there - you are. They have an agenda too, and apparently you are a undiscriminating consumer. First, you have no idea who I am or what I do for a living, so your erroneous suppositions about what I believe and how I judge media coverage are just verbal flatulence. Contrary to your opinionated blathering, while any publisher may have any agenda, it gets expressed mainly on the editorial page and sometimes to a lesser extent in what gets covered or ignored, but not down in the weeds through systematic micromanagement of what all their reporters and columnists actually write.  At that level it's the writer's knowledge and biases that determine the content. Contrary to YOUR opinionated blathering, you jackass, a publisher's agenda (political or otherwise) affects the reporting of the news, the wording of the articles and the placement and selection of the articles presented.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Agreed.  And might I add that the opinions of the owner/publisher are hardly limited to the editorial page???  That's one more point of ignorance on this Mazor fellow's part. Freedom of the press is quite important if you own one.  If you don't, you're only consuming somebody else's viewpoint.  You always need to use a critical eye on what you see in print in the MSM. oly

- Ukryj cytowany tekst -- Poka¿ cytowany tekst -

Contrary to YOUR opinionated blathering, you jackass, a publisher's agenda (political or otherwise) affects the reporting of the news, the wording of the articles and the placement and selection of the articles presented. Anything can and does happen, so there always are exceptions.  You can't judge an industry _base_d on the worst examples, any more than you can judge coin dealers as a whole _base_d on the horror stories.  I'm talking about the vast majority of mainstream media. As I said, publishers will sometimes dictate whether a story is covered.  That tends to happen more in conservative publications because the (rich) owners bought the company for the purpose of giving a platform to their views, which they feel aren't given sufficient exposure in other outlets.  Richard Scaife's Tribune-Review is a prominent example of that.  In other media, sometimes you'll find underreporting of a story that is embarrassing to the owner or parent corporation.  When the cult millionaire Rev. Moon bought the old Washington Star, that paper's reporting on Moonies became noticeably less critical. For everything else, what you see or read outside of the editorials is the result of news judgments by the editors and reporters, not the publisher.  Do you think that most publishers sit there editing the copy that goes out to make sure it fits their agenda? The instances of that are rare enough that they are reported and excoriated in the journalism media.  And to think that even at the editorially conservative WSJ, the publisher would be dictating to a market analysis columnist how to spin a column on gold is ludicrous.  There no logical connection between the contents of that column and any WSJ publisher agenda, nor is there any reason for one.  More to the point, no professional journalist worthy of the name is going to let the business side of the house dictate what goes into their reporting.  If the reporter's personal views align with those of the publisher then his stories will fit the publisher's agenda.  If they don't, then they won't.