Re: Wall Street Journal ---- Preciouse-Coin Market May Lose Its Luster

oly wrote:
On May 3, 4:32 pm, "John Mazor" <maz...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"oly" <oly2...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b7957657-28e0-4800-9e35-7bc2b19ba514@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 3, 10:09 am, "John Mazor" <maz...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"oly" <oly2...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:82d50d8c-e3f0-4ac9-867f-317bec544030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 3, 5:25 am, "Bruce Remick" <rem...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Arizona Coin Collector" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:huidnSUr86c5VYbVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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!


.

Relevant Pages