Depends on what you or your friend mean by "tanks". In the typical scenario,
you buy more of that mutual fund, assuming the concept behind the fund still
makes sense to you.

"Tim" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was thinking on that same line. I've heard various conspiricy
theorists alway say that gold is a great "hedge against inflation"
huh? Lets face it, it's only worth what you can get out of it. I've
seen gold trade a year ago for $256.00 per troy ounce, then it shoots
up to $358. per ounce, and people think their gold is worth a lot but
they don't sell it.

25 yrs ago I saw the stuff break $800.00 per ounce, then crash down to
$335. (+/-) almost over night. So I've always thought that it was a
volitile market. Especially seeing our economy isn't set on a gold
standard and hasn't been for many, many years.

A friend of mine told me once when I was skeptical about investing in
some no-load mutual funds. he said. "Listen Tim, if you think that if
the economy is going to tank and you'll lose money, remember. If the
economy tanks. Nobody has any money anyhow."






JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
I think the idea's weird, but that's based on MY picture of "when all
hell
breaks loose". Who will decide what gold is worth? A lot of survivalists
would correctly say that food, ammo, serious boots & clothing and
gasoline
are gonna look real good compared to a bunch of gold coins that are stuck
in
a bank vault that you can't access.


"Tim" wrote in message
ups.com...
This had been pretty good, when you get down to a real discussion. I've
always wondered about gold. buying gold. a reletive of min has some
gold. actually over the years of collecting, he's got a pretty good
stash, like maybe a 10 troy pounds. He has stated that gold is a great
investment, and I've kind of been reserved about it. because he says
when all else fails you always have gold. OK, my arguement is that if
all else fails (economy?) then gold will fail too. After all, you can't
eat it. I mean, if you're starving, then what is worth more to you? 5
chickens? or an ounce of gold?

Doug, you got any thoughts on buying and selling gold?
THANKS!

Tim



JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:40:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..

Bzzzt. I asked first, and you haven't answered. Explain how
the
US
price is "out of hand".

The price elsewhere is completely irrelevant. That's your answer
to
the
Europe issue. As far as the price here, 25% to 35% of it consists
of
trading
excess, like tech stocks before the bottom fell out. For stocks,
it
doesn't
matter, because nobody is required to own them. For oil, the
design
of
our
country (which only gets worse) mandates its use. The oil
companies,
knowing
this, do whatever they want with the price. That's a crime, and
should
be
dealt with.


What would you do, Doug?
John

Limit futures trading to companies which have a material interest in
the
commodity being traded, in this case, oil. Eliminate speculators,
who,
by
definition, are in no way involved with the production of petroleum
products. This latter group is simply playing games. Stopping this
would
not
totally eliminate the fluff in the price, but it would go far in
that
direction.


Are the oil companies the only futures traders, 'doing whatever they
want
with the price' which, as you stated, is a crime?

John, I stated above that there were two general categories of
traders,
so
the obvious answer to your question is NO. There are companies with a
material interest in production costs, like Exxon, etc. Then, there
are
pure
speculators. You and I can trade contracts, but more often, it's
institutional traders who are managing (?) other peoples' money
(mutual
funds, retirement money, etc).



Would you make that a law for all futures trading?

Just oil, and perhaps natural gas. These are two products we cannot
stop
using for various reasons. We don't hear much outrage about wild price
swings for other products which are subject to gambling, like cocoa,
sugar,
pork bellies, etc., so why bother with them?


Would the SEC then have
to check whether all futures traders had a 'material interest' in
the
commodity. How would you define 'material interest'?

The SEC is fully capable of determining who is trading ANYTHING on the
various exchanges. As far as "material interest", that was also
explained
earlier. Why are you asking again?