VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:00:51 01/07/05 Fri
Author: siempre
Subject: MORE how much silver?

Date: Fri Jan 07 2005 09:04
ted butler (Hambone) ID#233236:
Copyright © 2002 ted butler/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved

I have mulled it over and would suggest you do the same. You strongly imply that these are my statistics. They are not. But they come from the premier objective mineral data gatherer, the US Geological Survey. If you have reason to believe the statistics are materially incorrect, and that you have better statistics, then lay it out.

And nowhere did anyone assert that there was any kind of change in the proportions of minerals in the earth’s crust. The point was that the proportions were not fully appreciated, in my opinion.

Look, I make my research on what I believe are accurate and accepted data, I certainly don’t make numbers up. Given the data presented by the USGS, I think I reached the most logical conclusion. If you have a different conclusion, I’d love to hear it. If you have a gripe with the USGS’ data, then present that and take it up with them. But I would suggest you review the data first, which is something I don’t think you’ve done.
***************************************************************
Hambone (ted butler ) ID#263173:
Copyright © 2002 Hambone/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
I don't know how old you are, but I suspect you're a bit younger than I.

Let me give you the benefit of some of my experience. During the oil crisis of the 70's I was a stockbroker. As oil shot up in price and lines formed at the pumps, Wall Street analysts came out with report after report, all based on government statistics, that there was a great possibility that the world economy would run out of oil within 30-40 years. Did we? No. Exploration found more.

Now you have a report in hand that suggests the same thing about silver, oddly enough from another government entity.

Don't you find it a bit ironic that on the one hand you trust this government report, and on the other accuse the government ( Comex regulators ) of complicity in the great silver shortage scam?

How much silver is left in the Earth's crust? Who the hell knows? Not me, not you and not the USGS either.
***************************************************************
Date: Fri Jan 07 2005 09:43
ted butler (Hambone) ID#233236:
Copyright © 2002 ted butler/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
I had expected a non-responsive reply, so I was not disappointed. The USGS has no obvious reason to misrepresent the statistics, to my knowledge, and somehow present extraordinary bullish data on silver. The CFTC has every reason to deny that they may have screwed up and misunderstood the silver manipulation.

I wish I were a lot younger than you, but I also was a stockbroker for Merrill Lynch in the early 70’s. Not that I know what difference that would make in what I write. I’ll let you have your customary last word, as I’m off to have lunch with Dave Morgan ( whom I’ve talked to often over the years, but have never met ) and the Mogombo Guru ( whom I’ve never talked to nor met ) Should be fun Ta Ta
***************************************************************
Date: Fri Jan 07 2005 10:02
Hambone (ted butler) ID#263173:
Copyright © 2002 Hambone/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
"I had expected a non-responsive reply"

Really? I never stated the USGS had an ax to grind, merely that they were capable of error. Their report is based on data as it now exists. Would you not expect their report to change if the data does? Would you not expect more exploration to have an effect on the data? Is the world static? Is it not true that precious metals exploration in the last decade ( and more ) has been at near depression levels for the industry?

Embrace what you will if it suits your position. I tend to be more skeptical.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.