Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Valyooo (99.82)

Define Intrinsic Value

Recs

17

May 10, 2011 – Comments (32)

There are dozens of posts about silver and gold floating around here.  You've got the people who are bullish on it because they are bearish on the dollar, and then you have the group of people saying gold and silver have no intrinsic value because it is not productive.  The latter group has been consistently wrong about gold and silver for about 10 years.  I have a huge portion of my portfolio in silver...but I come here unbiased because I am ususally the first one to rip on somebody for going off on rants about the USA burning in flames, hyperinflation, etc.

I don't understand why this group thinks that gold and silver have no intrinsic value.  If the market sets the price of gold at $1520 an ounce , that is how the general public values it...is this its extrinsic value?

Surely, if gold and silver have no intrinsic value, that neither does the dollar, right?  Money is imaginary in a sense.  Currency isn't money.  I look at my bank acount and there are a few numbers with a comma here and a decimal there.  Is this somehow worth intrinsically more than gold or silver?

Taking it a step further, we can compare it to equities.  Lets take the stock of RIMM (just using it as an example).  RIMM produces a lot of dollars.  But dollars are worthless, because they have no intrinsic value.  They have no intrinsic value because they don't produce anything.  So therefore RIMM is worthless.  Also, it is a company losing market share...so how does it have any value?   Even if you don't look at it as something generating dollars, how does me owning a piece of a company make it intrinsically valuable if I am not doing any work for that company?

Taking it another step further, some people don't care about money at all.  They care about their family and health.  There are some tribes that don't use currency at all.  Are you in the position to tell somebody he should value RIMM shares more than his family?  Should you be shorting finance and going long happy?

So if the price of silver and gold goes up faster than the price of RIMM (and you can count on that), then you can say whoever invested in silver was smart enough to know that in the future people would value silver at a higher in/ex trinsic value than RIMM.  

So, please, tell me why you know what intrinsic value is, but everybody else is wrong for having different values.

32 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 10, 2011 at 6:05 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

Not that I disagree with you, just playing "devil's advocate" here.  But I think people use "intrinsic value" as sort of a "can you use it or barter it?" question.

RIMM stock may be worthless if it only pays you in dollars, but theorhetically, it also entitles you, as owner of the company, to a portion of their assets.  RIMM may be a bad example here, imagine if instead of a huge public corporation, you buy (in lieu of gold and silver), a 50% share in a local coffee shop.  The coffee shop has intrinsic value in the sense that people will want their service, and will be willing to barter for it (whether that bartering occurrs in dollars, gold, silver, chickens, magic beans, or shares of RIMM).  Even if the dollar becomes worthless, the coffee shop is not, because you can simply change policy to stop accepting dollars and start accepting the new global currency, the Sorosdollar.

Does that make sense at all?  I'm pretty bad with analogies...

Report this comment
#2) On May 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

I understand what you are saying.  But what assets are worth anything?  A building?  tables?  What are those worth?

Why do people invest in companies that are trading at cash?  Whats cash worth?

What if silver becomes the next currency...you buy SLW, and you have a company literally streaming money.

 

Report this comment
#3) On May 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM, monksnake (41.32) wrote:

True "intrinsic value" is immeasurable as each individual values items, goods, services, etc. at different amounts. 

 

Report this comment
#4) On May 10, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

Exactly.

Report this comment
#5) On May 10, 2011 at 7:27 PM, TMFAleph1 (95.77) wrote:

Intrinsic value is a concept that is generally associated with assets that give the owner title to a stream of cashflows (i.e. stocks, bonds, preferred shares, etc). That stream of cashflows has an intrinsic value that is independent from the market price of the asset.

Gold doesn't fall into that category.

Alex Dumortier

Report this comment
#6) On May 10, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

I think capital gains generally trump all

Report this comment
#7) On May 10, 2011 at 7:57 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

Well, in the end, everything is worth whatever you can get for it in free and fair trade.

So, as of today, dollars are worth something.  Gold is worth something.  If you find yourself stranded in the amazon with a tribe who has no currency, those things will likely be worth nothing.

But your labor might be worth something to them.  If you happen to have a swiss army knife on you, that might be worth something to them.  However, even if it isn't, you can still use the swiss army knife for a variety of functions that may contribute to your survival.  I think when people refer to "intrinsic value" they're referring to a value of something independent of what you could get simply by bartering it.

The intrinsic value of a bagel is the fact that I can eat it.  The calories are an intrinsic value, regardless of where bagel futures trade.  The intrinsic value of a hammer is that I can build something with it, even if nobody within 1,000 miles of me wants my hammer, it still has some value.  The concern with gold, I guess (still being devil's advocate here) is that you can't really *do* all that much with it besides trade it for something else.  Of course, this is far *more* true of any paper fiat currency, you know?

Report this comment
#8) On May 10, 2011 at 8:48 PM, TheDumbMoney (59.58) wrote:

"Lets take the stock of RIMM (just using it as an example).  RIMM produces a lot of dollars.  But dollars are worthless, because they have no intrinsic value."

I get the point you're making, but I still found that statement a bit funny.  At root it's true, but it's also, like, totally existential, dude...like, whoa, like, there like really is no reality, man, and like the universe is a box of bunnies, and the dollar like has no intrinsic value;...hey, I'm hungry, let's go get White Castle!  Because really, if nothing has any value, let's just all quit our jobs and get stoned in Goa.

Separately, your response to Alex is an assertion of a subjective position.   He answered the original question though.  Whether you like it or not, when people here talk about "intrinsic value" they are talking about a way to value something based on its cash flows.  If you honestly wanted to know why people say gold has no intrinsic value, that's the answer.  That's shorthand; it could more accurately be said (at least in my view) that may well gold have some intrinsic value, but that it's unknowable.  

If, alternatively, what you really want to do is bash that definition of intrinsic value, just say so in the original post.  You almost imply that the market price is inherently the intrinsic value, which is simply a restatement of the efficient markets theory, and which just about anyone who bothers picking individual stocks on any sort of a valuation basis disagrees with.  And which has historically proven wrong on many occasions, pertaining to many securities.

Anyway, congratulations on your successful momentum speculation in silver; may you get out at precisely the right moment when it eventually peaks.  Just know that people were saying exactly the same things eleven years ago, when I would guess you were about ten to twelve years old, about dotcom-darling stocks like InfoSpace.  At that time I was laughed at for buying Phillip Morris.  Then, from early 2000 through the end of that year, a stock like InfoSpace fell 97%. 

Want to know why my friends lost tons of money then?  Becase they thought "true 'intrinsic value' is immeasurable as each individual values items, goods, services, etc. at different amounts."  Because they thought that, they ignored the price of stocks when they bought, becaue they were excited by the momentum, and by their prior gains, and because they believed the growth story because they wanted to believe it.  

I'm not saying silver will fall that much by any means, but just be careful.  You may not respect the results of folks like me, but I like you, and I simply urge you just be careful.  Just because you ride the momentum on a great story does not mean you have to believe it.  That's where you go wrong, if you become a true believer.  Maybe we are witnessing a paradigm shift on commodities, maybe not.  The only gaurantee on that is that whoever turns out to be correct on the call will credit their intelligence, and whoever turns out to be wrong will credit bad luck!  :-)

Report this comment
#9) On May 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

Alex used the word "generally"  Looking up the definition, I found these:

"how much the metal in a coin is worth." (Which directly supports my theory)

and in numismatics "Intrinsic value, in general, is the argument that the value of a product is intrinsic within the product rather than dependent on the buyer's perception."

Additionally, not all companies are valued using the same discount rate for cash flows, because some firms produce cash flows with riskier methods than other.  Therefore, intrinsic value is not easily defined, which is another reason I don't like the term.

Phillip Morris is my #1 holding, you don't have to preach that to me.  Those internet stocks produced no money, and they were bought on the thesis that they would be producing a lot of money one day.  The reason for buying silver is much different.

I am not investing in silver miners as a momentum play.  I bought it up on the dip, and sold some on the spike...I don't buy on gaps; I am not an emotion-driven investor.

If you a DCF model for a lot of these miners, they are incredibly undervalued.  SLW is expected to earn $2.08 this year.  Their earnings growth is like 100%.  A PEG ratio of 1 puts their stock at $208.  Obviously that is not how to value SLW, but it just goes to show that it is by no means expensive.

I don't "want to" believe anything.  I just understand what catalysts push silver higher, and they are all things that are currently unfolding.

Trust me, I completely appreciate what you are saying.

Rigt now my positions are PM, MHS, PHK, SBUX, VFC, AGNC, and a bunch of silver and gold stocks (mostly miners, a little AGQ and GLD) and a very tiny bit of BAC and C LEAPS.

I agree on the intelligence/bad luck aspect, and I highly doubt we will ever revert to silver as money.

But, the debt problems going on WILL push the metals higher.

My two main reasons for being bullish 1) Backwardation in the futures market 2) Bullion dealers charging high premiums due to shortages.  

My plan is to scale out.  When it hits $50, I sell my AGQ and SLV.  When it hits $60, I sell my EXK, GPL, PAAS,  CEF.  I won't sell SLW until it hits $100.  If it never hits $100, I own a company thats growing like crazy, with high margins and an easy business model...what a shame :)

When I scale out of my positions, I will redeploy the money into BRF, STD, AMZN, AVB, SLB, CCJ, BTU, HAO, MPEL, QCOM, the marijuana IPO coming later this year, and a few index funds...mostly boring stuff.  Long term, I wish to own those type of companies, and buy on huge dips, and never sell.  But while silver is hot, and miners are cheap, I have no regrets of having most of my portfolio in silver.

 

Report this comment
#10) On May 10, 2011 at 9:47 PM, goalie37 (97.03) wrote:

Throwing in my own two cents, my definition of intrinsic value comes from a quote I heard a long time ago.  During a Supreme Court case, a justice was asked to define pornography.  His response was, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it."

Report this comment
#11) On May 10, 2011 at 9:48 PM, TheDumbMoney (59.58) wrote:

That reply is much more heartening than the original post!  More power to you.  Price targets are good things, as is taking some profits on winners.  I agree the specific thesis for silver is very different than for the dotcom stocks, but the generalized thesis is, for many people, identical:  a conception that this time is truly different.  That idea leads people to look realy, really smart while the thesis holds, and then to hold on long, long after the peak has reached.  People will ride that idea down a long way.  As hard as it may be to believe, it's very hard sometimes to tell this from this, when both are brand new and both are losing tons of money.   See the last chart on this link, for how long it might take to see another ride up on the silver bullet, though it's not immediately apparent to me how the charts on that site take account of inflation.  

Report this comment
#12) On May 10, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

That last link was broken, re-post it, I am interested.

My one regret was playing with options...that really screwed me.

Report this comment
#13) On May 10, 2011 at 10:22 PM, 100ozRound (30.56) wrote:

I've asked people who say gold and or silver is overvalued what metrics they use to measure the value - I still haven't gotten an answer.... 

Report this comment
#14) On May 10, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

100ozRound, don't hold your breath.

Report this comment
#15) On May 10, 2011 at 11:40 PM, TMFAleph1 (95.77) wrote:

I've asked people who say gold and or silver is overvalued what metrics they use to measure the value - I still haven't gotten an answer....  

@100ozRound,

That's funny: I get the same result when I ask gold enthusiasts to justify $2,000, $5,000 or $10,000 price targets for gold.

I've made a quantitative argument that both gold and silver are overpriced. But here are just a few figures that should give pause to any rational observer of (or participant in) these markets:

During the ten-year period ended today, gold has produced an annualized real return above 16%. This is a real return, i.e. none of it is attributable to inflation.

Even after last week’s massacre, silver has generated a 10-year annualized after-inflation return in excess of 21%. For reference, the equivalent return for stocks during the 1990s – an extraordinary decade for stocks -- was 14.8%. That wasn’t sustainable and neither are the returns we’ve witnessed on gold and silver.

Alex Dumortier

Report this comment
#16) On May 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, ikkyu2 (99.52) wrote:

I really think of gold as a currency.  Unlike other currencies, it is not tied to the fortunes of any particular nation-state, nor can any actor effectually regulate its supply and demand.  But its functions are the same as any other money: a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account.

If you put aside its negligible utilities in jewelry, dental work and electronics, it really has no other utilities or functions.

Currency has no intrinsic value because it relies on the agreement of others in order to have its utility for you.  Suppose you know you're going to be hungry at lunchtime.  A hamburger today has intrinsic value for you.  Suppose you know you're going to be hungry next spring.  A field planted with winter wheat in a location that gets good sun and rain has intrinsic value to you.

Suppose you know you're going to be hungry next spring and all you have is gold, or dollars.  If no one will trade your gold or dollars for their wheat, you starve.  That is what intrinsic value is about; and why money of all stripes doesn't have it. 

Report this comment
#17) On May 11, 2011 at 12:40 AM, ag77840 (21.02) wrote:

Valyooo,

What Marijuana IPO are you referring to?  Is this something fictional or real?

Are you currently holding EXK shares?  At what price are you considering selling?

 

 

Report this comment
#18) On May 11, 2011 at 12:58 AM, TheDumbMoney (59.58) wrote:

Valyoo, I can't find that link now for some reason, so I'll post this other inflation-adjusted chart, which I'm sure you've seen some variation of:

 

http://historysquared.com/2011/04/24/inflation-adjusted-silver-chart/

My statement was based on the fact that I have a family friend, a best friend of my wife's father, who has been holding a whole shi*tload of silver in a safety-deposit box since he bought it in 1980.  It has taken a long, long time and he is still not at his purchase price in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Also, re: the chart, I'm no expert, but few things leap out at me:

1) silver in the past experienced sever decline during a period when the national debt previously exploded and people were very worried about it (1983-1989);

2) During a time when both inflation and expectations were consistently low, during the Great Moderation, silver went low and stayed consistently low (1989-Berlin Wall falls -- 2005);

3) In the reverse, silver seems to rise when EITHER inflation is actually very high; or when people think it will be very high in the future (1978-1982; 2006-2011 (excluding the 2008/2009 liquidity drop/deflation-depression episode);

4) I think if you put the inflation-adjusted chart of silver up against a chart of the U.S. Dollar Index (dollar against a basket of six currencies) you would see almost no corrolation;

5) Clearly while silver is not at an historical real high, which was reached in part because of price manipulation by the Hunt brothers, if I recall, and not merely because of macro- or other factors, silver is above its inflation-adjusted average value during the post-1973 period by a long, long shot;

6) See here (http://www.wandwmetals.com/supply-demand-facts.aspx), from a metals company; demand for silver has not been sky-rocketing during the years since 2004 in a way related to the price action of silver from when silver really started to pop.  See also here: http://www.silverinstitute.org/supply_demand.php.  That shows the only major, major increase in demand has been relating to "investment," which I put in quotes for a reason.

Conclusion: not sure, but I'm not a taker, and also I do candidly think your silver trade is a bit more momentum-based than you are admitting.Best of fortune though.  I do think silver could go much, much higher based either on inflation expectations or (less likely) actual serious inflation.  I do not attempt to "value" silver or gold.  While they may have some intrinsic value, I think it's pretty impossible to know what it is, and all attempts to value them are ultimately relativistic, which is not a conception of 'valuation' I am comfortable with, since there are so many factors that impact the metrics they are being valued against.  Happy trading.

 

Report this comment
#19) On May 11, 2011 at 2:08 AM, HarryCarysGhost (99.78) wrote:

Intrinsic value: Definition from Answers.com

Report this comment
#20) On May 11, 2011 at 8:31 AM, outoffocus (24.51) wrote:

At root it's true, but it's also, like, totally existential, dude...like, whoa, like, there like really is no reality, man, and like the universe is a box of bunnies, and the dollar like has no intrinsic value;...hey, I'm hungry, let's go get White Castle!  Because really, if nothing has any value, let's just all quit our jobs and get stoned in Goa.

hilarious...

Report this comment
#21) On May 11, 2011 at 8:40 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Valyooo,

You are confusing intrinsic value, associated with equity pricing, and exchange value.  I answered a similar question in comment #6 of this blog, and I'll just repaste my response:

"The term intrinsic value is not an economic term. It is (I think) a useful starting point for fundamental stock pricing.  As long as you understand that there is no such thing as objective stock analysis, you'll do ok.  Every pricing model is subjective, since the model designer must choose what is valuable information and what is not, and how much weight to assign to each piece of information.  

From an economic view, dollars (and gold) have something called exchange value.  What that means is, you value a money because you expect to exchange it at a future time for other goods and services that are valuable to you.  One characteristic of a "good money" is that it holds its exchange value.  

Take this example. You sell your labor on the market place (whatever is your profession).  You receive X amount of dollars. Today that can purchase Y amount of goods. But if you can only purchase Y/2 amount of goods in a year's time with that same amount of dollars, the exchange value of dollars is falling.  

A good money retains its exchange value (or even better, sees it increase over time.)  The dollar has poor exchange value.  Since the end of the gold standard, it has had very poor exchange value.  And that case continues and only deteriorates as time goes by.  This is mostly due to the ability to create dollars out of nothing, as you pointed out above.  Unbacked paper money (and now electronic money) has long been the domain of utopian cranks who thought that the only thing wrong with the world was that the common man didn't have enough zeros at the end of his bank account balance. 

Warren Buffet has made quite a few non-economic arguments against gold (you can't eat it, it's just piece of metal, etc..) that you touch on in your comment.  The trick is, if you can you use those exact same arguments, except substitute the word dollar for gold in the sentence, then you know the person is economically ignorant.  Buffet is a great investor.  He is an economic fool.  They are two separate disciplines.  Your plumber doesn't fix your corrupted hard drive, and the policeman doesn't land airplanes.  The stock picker is not an economist merely because he can value equities."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On May 11, 2011 at 10:27 AM, TheDumbMoney (59.58) wrote:

My last link above isn'tworking either.  Try here:

http://www.silverinstitute.org/supply_demand.php

Report this comment
#23) On May 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM, TheDumbMoney (59.58) wrote:

And of course the answer to this:

"A good money retains its exchange value (or even better, sees it increase over time.)  The dollar has poor exchange value.  Since the end of the gold standard, it has had very poor exchange value.  And that case continues and only deteriorates as time goes by."

Is this:

Nobody holds significant dollars for any length of time, so the point is irrelevant.  People either immediately spend all disposable income (most people) or they, knowing the dollar declines over time, invest their money in equities or some form of fixed income investments.  Even an indexed investment in the S&P has made money since the end of the gold standard, even on an inflation-adjusted basis.  The fact that inflation causes the dollar to decline over time is a given, but it does not justify gold as "good money" when paper money has so many other advantages and there are many, many ways to insulate oneself from inflation of the paper currency.

Report this comment
#24) On May 11, 2011 at 11:11 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

People either immediately spend all disposable income (most people) or they, knowing the dollar declines over time, invest their money in equities or some form of fixed income investments.

First of all, I don't. I save. I've been saving for almost a decade and debt free for almost that entire time.  I live better because of it.

Second, you are speculating. Everyone saves. Everyone. Unless everyone's entire paychecks are spent the moment they get paid, someone is saving something for some period of time.

Third, is there causality here?  Do the artificially low rates induce people to spend, rather than save?  The answer of course is yes. And that is exactly what Keynesian economics preaches. Savings bad. Spending good.  So it's no surprise that people, with no incentive to save, that savings diminishes.  Of course, this is a recipe for disaster, since a nation that is present-oriented will consume more capital than it creates. 

Incentives: that should be among the first topic taught in any economic class. You ruin the incentive to save and you destroy your capital base.

For those of us, however, that would prefer a higher lifestyle (I live very well and travel the world many times a year without ever borrowing penny one), you can still save, but it's harder.  You need to add metal to your portfolio, no doubt. You need 2 or 3 or more times the average rainy day fund that is recommended. I recommend one year's salary plus mandatory expenses.  That's a lot, but that's why I'm never broke.

The fact that inflation causes the dollar to decline over time is a given, but it does not justify gold as "good money" when paper money has so many other advantages and there are many, many ways to insulate oneself from inflation of the paper currency.

What advantages?  That you can use it at the store? That you can buy stock with it? That you can have a Visa Card?  With a fully redeemable gold standard, you can have all those things, and not lose exchange value over time.  

There are no advantages, only the illusion of advantage because we have lost knowledge. People assume the gold standard is people walking around counting out coins. Ridiculous. It's the same money serving the same functions, just backed by gold.  Really, what is so hard to understand? 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#25) On May 11, 2011 at 11:28 AM, miteycasey (95.17) wrote:

Other than air, food, water, and shelter nothing has intrinsic value, only trade value.

If you start with that what is anything 'worth'? It's worth what people are willing to pay, or trade their dollars for a what you have. 

It can then be said that the worth is based on supply and demand.

With trillions of dollars being printed how can the price of something stay low? If houses wouldn't have been over supplied they would be through the roof now with low interest rates.

But with gold and silver the supply stays  relatively constant, say 1M onces, so with dollars being printed the price goes up.  If it was a 1:1 ratio and 1 once of gold was worth $1 if the dollar supply went up 10Mil the number of gold onces would gold then be worth $10???

What am I missing???

 

Report this comment
#26) On May 11, 2011 at 11:40 AM, TheDumbMoney (59.58) wrote:

Congratulations, David, it seems from your post above that you in particular are making out extremely well under our fiat regime. 

Keynesian economics does not preach "savings bad" "spending good," that is either a deliberate misrepresentation or a misunderstanding.  Keynesian economics preach "sometimes spending bad" "sometimes spending good."  Unfortunately, most of our politicians understand it as you have presented it, but that does not make it so.

You never above answer my point that one can historically defeat all ill effects of fiat appreciation in the U.S. by employing a relatively easy strategy with savings involving equities and fixed income investments.

Your point that you save is irrelevant.  Statistically, the vast majority of people do not, and consequently suffer virtually no losses from inflation.

I agree that a nation that is present-oriented is in deep tookie, and agree we are that nation.  I do not agree it is because of the fiat paper currency monetary standard.  It is because ever since the late eighties (and even moreso since the early nineties), our nation has been largely governed and managed by the Baby Boomer generation, the most spoiled, feckless, selfish, generation of teat-sucking entitled brats ever to walk the face of the earth, who never saw a spending program they didn't like, or a tax they did, and who will suck us totally dry if they can just so they can have their last ten operations to artificially extend their lives before they die of diseases caused largely by the excesses of their irresponsible, over-mythologized youths.

That said, our nation has always been pretty present-focused, and we've muddled along somehow.  And, because I'm feeling cranky this morning, let me just say that libertarianism leads to even more of a present-focused outline.  While I truly do believe that, I'm really only saying it to rile you up.  :-)

Report this comment
#27) On May 11, 2011 at 11:54 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

dumber,

LMAO. You wouldn't know it, but there is so much we agree on, except that hilariously silly final sentence. 

The baby boomers did screw us. They are the WORST generation. Statist, socialist, conformists that never meant a spending program they didn't love (as long as someone else paid for it), a flag they couldn't stare at with awe and reverance, or a social program to embrace in order to stamp out some vice they found personally repellent.  In short, they suck.

But there is no doubt that unbacked paper money causes problems.

First, it is impossible for Bernanke, even if he had superpowers, to know the right rate of interest.  

Second, "spending sometimes bad" is fine, and that is what Keynes said, but that is not modern Keynesianism. If I had 5 cents for everytime Hicks or Samuelson or now Krugman and his little sister DeLong called for spending cuts, I couldn't even buy bubble gum.

Finally, since the right rate of interest can never be determined, it is the best interest of the Fed chief and his merry planners to err on the side of low rates. Low interest rates, below where the market would place them, are a disincentive to savings. That is simply an economic reality.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#28) On May 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM, walt373 (99.85) wrote:

If you don't believe in calculating intrinsic value by using cash, then you might as well stop measuring returns in cash as well. I've always been intruiged by how the people who claim fiat money is worthless are still very interested in how much gold and silver cost as quoted in dollars. Until you can buy food and shelter with gold and silver directly, fiat money is still the standard for which value is measured.

Report this comment
#29) On May 11, 2011 at 3:15 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

David,

I'm confused.  Can you not afford the bubblegum because they never said those things, or is it because of QE2?  =)

Report this comment
#30) On May 11, 2011 at 7:57 PM, TheDumbMoney (59.58) wrote:

Hey, ya wanna know when you should be leery of an asset class?   When people are posting astrology updates about it.

You can consider my sh*t safely and soundly cracked over that one.

Report this comment
#31) On May 11, 2011 at 10:25 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

smart,

well played.

dumberthanafool,

The low hanging fruit. Don't settle for that. Go for the real debate.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#32) On May 16, 2011 at 10:46 AM, mtf00l (48.59) wrote:

Welcome back to the fray David.

Perhaps the boomers did do all the things prognosticated here, so what?  That's water under the bridge.  What have the generations since done?  They are taking advantage of the same things the boomers have.  Again, so what?

What shall we do now?  Who shall we support?  What do you really expect to change and when?

Seeds.  That's the answer.  With seeds you can eat, plant and create usable derivatives.

Just my 2 cents.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement