canasia.org

You always need to use a critical eye on what you see in print in the MSM. Only a fool or a child would read anything in the news without filtering it through the lens of healthy skepticism, regardless of the source. But since you limited your observation to the MSM, that suggests that you feel you don't need to apply a critical eye to what you get from Limbaugh, Savage, Fox, et al.  Is everything from them the whole story and the utter gospel truth, oly?

Freedom of the press is quite important if you own one.  If you don't, you're only consuming somebody else's viewpoint. That's the whole point of the marketplace of ideas, oly.  Even the owners and publishers ultimately are consuming someone else's ideas. You always need to use a critical eye on what you see in print in the MSM. Only a fool or a child would read anything in the news without filtering it through the lens of healthy skepticism, regardless of the source. But since you limited your observation to the MSM, that suggests that you feel you don't need to apply a critical eye to what you get from Limbaugh, Savage, Fox, et al.  Is everything from them the whole story and the utter gospel truth, oly? Those are not the places where I get my news, oh Mazor liberal sister- boy. I don't spend a lot of time listening or watching anything that comes out of the big black box. oly

Freedom of the press is quite important if you own one.  If you don't, you're only consuming somebody else's viewpoint. That's the whole point of the marketplace of ideas, oly.  Even the owners and publishers ultimately are consuming someone else's ideas. You always need to use a critical eye on what you see in print in the MSM. Only a fool or a child would read anything in the news without filtering it through the lens of healthy skepticism, regardless of the source. But since you limited your observation to the MSM, that suggests that you feel you don't need to apply a critical eye to what you get from Limbaugh, Savage, Fox, et al.  Is everything from them the whole story and the utter gospel truth, oly? Those are not the places where I get my news, oh Mazor liberal sister- boy. I don't spend a lot of time listening or watching anything that comes out of the big black box. oly- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - My gawd, mazor, pls keep your homosexual drivel out of my personal e- mail box.  I'm a grown man who's seen most everything, but I don't care for your ravings in my personal e-mail. 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. ++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. You mean life Fox News and The National Review, for example?  Quite biased toward the liberal viewpoint, are they? The media outlets are only as liberal as the conservatives that own them. Please stop perpetuating this myth.  Crickey, you sound like Hinz. There should be a Liberal Bias in the Media commemorative coin with Rush Limbaugh on the reverse and Rupert Murdoch on the obverse. Patrick - or Vice Versa!

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. You mean life Fox News and The National Review, for example?  Quite biased toward the liberal viewpoint, are they? The media outlets are only as liberal as the conservatives that own them. Please stop perpetuating this myth.  Crickey, you sound like Hinz. There should be a Liberal Bias in the Media commemorative coin with Rush Limbaugh on the reverse and Rupert Murdoch on the obverse. Patrick - or Vice Versa!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Where do they come up with you people? The soft left MSM - Time 4 million copies per week, Newsweek 3 million per week, U.S. News and World Report 2 million per week. Let's average at one copy of each magazine for every 100 Americans. Every week.  These are the MSM folks that consider their east coast, moderate leftist, moderate redistributionist, unquestioning statist, moderate atheistic and moderate soft porn viewpoints to be the desireable norm for every American. Of course, they are all anti-gold and it is one of the few things they are rather more strident about (actually, they generally feel it is safer to avoid even acknowledging that there is any potentially viable system other than our paper/credit-_base_d financial system). National Review (which I do NOT regularly read) 155 thousand copies per month.  That's one copy for every 2,000 Americans.  At National Review, they do seem to acknowledge that there is a wide-range of viewpoints other than their own. Do the numbers (well, I hope my math is in the ballpark), and then who is MSM? oly

The soft left MSM - Time 4 million copies per week, Newsweek 3 million per week, U.S. News and World Report 2 million per week. Yeah well, hopeless ignorant liberal Al-Queda sympathizers don't read that much. I will not bow out of this discussion before it needlessly escalates and moves further from the discussion of coins.