Soros

[Fortunato]

Actually here is a CBC article concerning the US recession that started Mar/01 - there are many - but here is another group you think your smarter than

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2002/01/30/USeconomy_020130

As you can see the quarter test you said was absolute isn't - guess what jerk it's a benchmark or are you going to say your smarter not only than Bush and Kerry but the National Bureau of Economic Research. I doubt that you are.

Did you read your own article? Did you?

An exerpt:

"If the growth figure holds, it would mean the U.S. economy only contracted in one quarter – the June-September period when GDP shrank by an annual rate of 1.3 per cent. The positive Q4 figure would also mean the U.S. economy had avoided a recession, at least in the classic definition of a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction."

Isn't that what has been said all along. The "definition". So that everyone is discussing the same thing. Sure, I suppose you can go around and change the definition whenever you want to... but... and I reiterate: "by the classic definition of a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction".

And still, this point is trivial. It was only to refute you clucking "they had a recession and we didn't" in an effort to delude that we are not economically tied. The truth is, our economic performance was similar over the same period, and we are AS tied to them as we ever were.

God, your an idiot.

 

[Fortunato]

See here you go again - it said that gold responds to both a deflationary crisis along with an inflationary crisis.

No, it isn't. You say it. You found a presentation slide that said it. But it is not. Never has been. Never will.

GOLD WILL NOT RESPOND IN THE SAME WAY TO DEFLATION THAT IT WILL TO INFLATION, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN YOU SAY IT.

What have been taught in recent years - that gold is a hedge for inflation.

Like all real assets, gold will appreciate in an inflationary environment.

If it responds in the same way - why wouldn't it be a hedge for deflation.

Because deflation is the OPPOSITE of inflation. As such, the response is exactly opposite. Inflation increases the value of real assets like gold relative to the currency... deflation DECREASES the value of real assets like gold relative to the currency. Exactly opposite. Remember? A for up AND A for down? Cannot possibly be.

See you can't admit your wrong. Like you where about recession in the US, like so many other things.

You keep saying that, but it's not true as well. I'm not wrong. I have shown it. You just keep saying it, and saying it, and saying it....

Talk about being exactly like GWB.

You should give it up - your really becoming a pathetic joke. BTW you jackass - a stable price can be a hedge.

The price was stable because it was pegged. And, as hedges go, if you were trying to hedge against something, you generally don't pick something that is "fixed" to it. Idiot.

Use your brain for a change. And why is it that I knew you where going to take a swipe at the author of that presentation - because you think you know it all.

No, I took exception with the author because his "theories" are exactly like yours. Very wrong. Very unsubstantiated.

...in fact... come to think about it... it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the presentation was YOURS.

Now if you had bothered to read my post - I did indicate that I didn't agree with the author on all of it - and by that I mean his facts are correct, I'm just not sure about the conclusions.

What facts? In a slide presentation, he asserts (in a single line) that gold is a hedge for both inflationary and deflationary "CRISES", and never explains how this is theoretically possible, or that it has been measurably observed.

I show you an article, written for investment managers in a publication that refutes this notion entirely, and you don't even blink.

Seriously, is your helmet too tight?

If your an investment professional, I am very worried about your clients - you remind me of the punks that post on the Stockhouse Bullboards.

I figured you know all about Stockhouse (with your penny-stock touting, you undoubtedly spend a lot of time there). Don't worry, I don't take investment (or hedging) advice from idiots on chat boards....

 

[Fortunato]

only an incompetent one would not regonize that Canada is not as linked to the US as it was 1980 - that's a point you keep forgetting to mention, the date reference. I will repeat once again - Is US important to our economy - will it effect us, yes to both but the days of the a minor economic disturbance in the US being a major problem in Canada are gone and have been since about 1980. There are two reasons for this and I will leave that up to you to figure out.

Again! You just SAY this stuff... and now you say you have reasons/evidence, but they're... "secret"?

You say we are less tied, but you can't (won't) say why. I explain that, out of every three dollars of GDP TODAY (right now), ONE of them comes from the US. AND, we are one tenth of the size of them. It is incomprehensible that we wouldn't be tied to EVERY SINGLE HICCUP, SNIFF, SNIVEL, AND COUGH that they experience.

You say less than in 1980, but offer no reasoning or empirical evidence YET AGAIN.

We're just supposed to believe you.


Like you've ever had a clue.

 

[Fortunato]

Idiot??? Only a true moron would take out of context a link and post half the story - everyone can read link you twit, and then they know what a liar you are.

I'll make it even EASIER. I'll post the entire text here:

****
U.S. economy posts small gain in fourth quarter
Last Updated Wed Jan 30 10:18:42 2002
WASHINGTON - Boosted by vehicle sales and a big increase in government spending, the United States economy grew at a surprising annual rate of 0.2 per cent between September and December.

While small, the economic growth was unexpected. Economists had been expecting U.S. gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, to shrink by an annual rate of 1 per cent in the fourth quarter.

The better-than-expected Q4 figure also reinforced the sentiment that the U.S. Federal Reserve will stand pat when it makes its decision on interest rates on Wednesday afternoon, ending a string of rate cuts dating back to January, 2001.

If the growth figure holds, it would mean the U.S. economy only contracted in one quarter – the June-September period when GDP shrank by an annual rate of 1.3 per cent. The positive Q4 figure would also mean the U.S. economy had avoided a recession, at least in the classic definition of a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction.

However, the National Bureau of Economic Research, which uses a host of monthly measures to track economic activity, said the U.S. entered a recession back in March, 2001. Using its criteria, the NBER has not yet declared that the U.S. is out of recession.

For all of 2001, U.S. GDP grew by 1.1 per cent, its weakest performance since 1991, when the last recession ended.
***


I don't know what I took "out of context". The article says:

- The economy GREW in Q4
- The growth was unexpected
- The Fed won't move
- IF THE FIGURE HOLDS, WE DID NOT MEET THE CLASSIC DEFINITION OF A RECESSION
- The NBER disagrees, and (using a different measure) argues that we went into recession in March 01.


Guess what? Subsequently, NBER decided that they think the recession ended in November '01 (for eight months duration). And... it still doesn't correspond with the "classic definition" of recession.


Seriously... did you teach yourself to read, too? Because you get an awful lot of "unusual" interpretations from just the simplest things, and have likely the LOWEST literary comprehension I think I've ever seen....

 

[Fortunato]

...Yes the article is very blunt about the Classic defination but as I said in the post it is not the only measure and in fact the two quarter test has not been an absolute and only measure, surely by know you understand that economics is a fluid science and very rarely are there absolutes.

Ha ha! I noticed how you go back and change your posts once you get refuted (this section used to talk about how I didn't read the entire article... and how the article spoke of "two quarter guideline" and "tests" and "suggestions" and the like, as opposed to how it treated the "definition" bluntly...). I guess I'm going to have to quote more fully to capture the amusement for future readers....

Further comment as a result of the revisions:

I wouldn't call economics a "fluid" science (in fact, while it is a discipline, I don't think it is a "science" at all... if you want to, that's fine - I just don't think it meets the level of "certainty" required to be a "science"). The problem with your "fluidity" is that it changes things, and makes them uncomparable. If we say that the US can be in recession without having two quarters of contraction (the "classic definition" that economists use to determine what is and what is not a recession), then where else or when else has this happened? And could we not call those times recessions as well?

That is why Economists like to give things very specific definitions (disflation aside... you won't see that one in any text or reference book). That is why they DON'T like improvisational change. That is why they don't like "lay-people" definitions (because, at any given time, 40 - 60% of them will say they believe we are in recession). It's so that they can continue to compare "like" with "like"... not only from country to country, but from period to period. If this weren't the case, do you think anyone (but a politician) would CARE if the period Q1 - Q3 2001 was technically called a recession or not?

THAT was the point all along. YOU were trying to say that US and Canadian economic performance were markedly different (they had a recession, and we didn't). I was pointing out that, objectively, they were NOT materially different (after all, we also had negative growth that didn't span two consecutive quarters in that period... why don't we call THAT a recession?), regardless of calling one a "recession" or not.

And you, with your "secret reasons", have yet show anything to the contrary, except for your redundant, unsubstantiated blathering of generalisations and unfounded assumptions.


Good day.

F.

 

[Fortunato]

Will you STOP re-writing what you wrote? Not only is it frustrating (having to dig back to find your NEW rediculous "thoughts"), but it's depriving many people of the rich amusement that they deserve!

Look moron - I know gold is a real asset, but I was very specific in what I said - you distorted it to also include houses and cars and such and thats true isn't it - your comment was a feeble try to cover the fact that you where stone cold wrong.

No, it wasn't. Gold is a real asset. It will behave exactly like other real assets will when exposed to inflation/deflation. There is no distortion - you believe gold, a real asset, is a hedge to deflation. It, like every other real asset, is NOT. It never has been. It never will be.

Could't be clearer, about what YOU claim. Or what I have said. Or how WRONG you are.

But live your fantasy. BTW I read your article - and all it's about is that Deflation in our current enviroment is much ado about nothing - so what, I happen to agree with that - it still doesn't change the fact that argued my points in a dishonest and false manner.

I've argued no such thing.

You (unknown tout on escort review board) say: Gold is a hedge against inflation and deflation.

He (author in Canadian Investment Review) says: "In terms of assets, BONDS are the natural deflation hedge."

Did he mis-state that? Didn't he mean "gold"???

No. Gold, like other real assets "would also presumably do poorly since the very nature of deflation is a flight from goods to money."

But, I guess I've mis-quoted both he and you again for some mysterious reasons. Even though I can show you links to both.

I think truth ans reality are concepts you don't understand
Lets recap

From you? Oh, that's PRECIOUS. But yes, lets!

 

[Fortunato]

Deflation and Gold as a hedge - I said it was, you where wrong according to the link provided.

Which is no more credible than your words, and unbacked by either theory or empirical observation. That you are wrong is supported by MY link, theory, and empical observation.

YOU are wrong.

US Recession - you claimed it didn't happen despite what GWB and JFK have said about the Recession - oh and should I mention that org. that also says there was one ( I am sure folks he will find some way of saying he's right and there all wrong) Common sense Fort. - I think our American will say there was one especially if you live in Northern Ohio. Again you where wrong.

Technically, they were not. Again, let's go back and read YOUR article, with YOUR "classic definition" of recession. But again, the only relevance of this was to keep you from "clucking" about how this "proves" that the Canadian economy is no longer as tied to the US as it used to be. Which is a point that you missed (and were again WRONG on...)

The defination of Deflation - your description was that of benign deflation - when I tried to point out to the difference was a drop in spending with a corresponding negative growth of CPI and benign inflation is a drop in prices due to productivity - you fliped out and said it is debt and leverage. Sorry wrong again. A deflation/debt spiral is a result of deflation.

My defintion is no such thing... all it ever has been is a decline in prices (or appreciation of currency). YOU were the one who was hopping around saying that deflation means spirals and depression and central bank insolvency and the end of the world as we know it (and how the mere thought of it should send every citizen crying to the arms of their mothers). I have always stated that it is nothing more than inflation backwards.

My comments about debt were only to explain Greenspan's fears, and yes - in a over-leveraged envrionment, deflation can cause a lot of trouble. But, if you aren't leveraged, it won't. But the problem is an over-exposure to debt, not deflation.

Here, try this. Go back and look at your presentation link again... there were charts of deflationary periods in the US... notice how often prices were falling, especially pre 1900 (at least 50% of the time), where there was no "over-leverage"? Did that cause "damage"? Or "deflation/debt" spirals? No. Why? Because you can't have a "deflation/debt" spiral if you don't have the debt. (Or, if the debt is less than your monetary assets).

Greenspan knows this, and that is why he talks incessantly about reducing debt. Because he knows THAT is the problem Americans face, and that price corrections cannot be staved off forever.

But this is too complex for you to understand. And... of course... that means you are STILL wrong.


Oh, and by the way, YOUR definition of "benign inflation" (from above)? It's wrong, too (how can a drop in prices, from productivity or otherwise, be called "inflation"? Inflation is where prices go UP...). I mean, seriously, if you can't even get THAT straight (inflation = prices go up, deflation = prices go down), how the heck is anyone to take ANYTHING you say on economics seriously.

aside: I remember your rant to *d*, about how you admit when you are wrong... I can't wait to hear how you get out of this one.

So all in all you have wasted my time just to be proven wrong and no amount of spin can help you there.

You have yet to prove me wrong, on even one of your points. In fact, you usually don't even try... you just SAY it, and SAY it, and SAY it.... like that will somehow make it true. When I ask you to justify it, either with theory or empirical evidence, you don't... you just go back to clucking and clucking and clucking about how "right" you are.

I know you aren’t worth it… still, you are such a curious case of dementia, that (much like a car wreck) it is hard to turn away….

Your tatics are discusting - you lie and distort thinking your going to get around your mistakes. Now being the little child you are - your going to want the last word but even after that you are wrong, wrong, wrong and nothing will change. See around Pat.

My tactics? Like re-writing my posts once I'm refuted, or realise that I sound like an idiot? No, wait... that's YOU again. My arguments have NEVER changed... never deviated... and remain truthful.

As always, you start and finish in the same spot for each and every one of your posts in any discussion - indignant, and incorrect.


(...and, the really funny part of it all is, you think that people don't SEE this... LOL... such a curious case, indeed...)

 

[Fortunato]

Wow I am not going to even read all these posts - Here we go again - an experts, paid to offer an opinion and you know better. Typical of you to disagree because it doesn't fit your BS.

In addition folks this jerk once again distorts another post of mine. When he makes statements about me liking penny stocks, what he fails to say is that I only made comments on one and very specific that I didn't think it should be part of a responsible portfolio yet Fort decided - mainly because I have challenged him in the past because of his statements - to critic the pick based on information that was in error such as "failed technology to mine the ore body" remember that Fort.

See, again with the LIES. I have never said "failed" technology. Ever. You can check all of my posts on the matter.

What I said was "unproven", which it is. It's never been used in a mine before. It's been done small scale in a lab in Ontario, but that's quite a different thing than in an open pit in Guatemala, processing millions of tonnes of material. THEY ADMIT THIS.

What I've also pointed out is that many small companies think they have the "latest" mining technology... most of them fail.

The fact is folks is that what most people have known is that the technology works, patents are place and to Fort's bad luck, the Company in question made announcement that the Tech is working better than they thought the day posted that. Fort, I got news for you there isn't a stock out there that I can't give you a solid reason to buy or sell - and I can do it unlike you without using faulty info. Anyways the stock is not for everyone although I still think it has potential and I do think it could hit 2.40 sooner rather than later - Oh and BTW the stock has moved from the low .50 to .80 in the last two weeks but it's not 2.40 yet. Time will tell who's right, and while Fort has the odds on his side because it is a Junior and all the risks associated with that - I still will be right (mainly because Fort says I'm wrong - NR)

No, again the reasons that I don't like JNI is:

- The only real prospect property is in Guatemala (not exactly the most secure, especially since you'll need to be there for a very long time)
- The property shows little promise (no PROVEN reserves, and drilling assay results that fail to impress, with nickel levels well below 2% grade)
- The fact that other companies (including Cominco) HAD this property, and walked away from it (deeming it uneconomic)
- The astronomical estimated cost of building a mine there (if you even can)
- How they "became" a nickel company after failing as a gold company
- How they needed to change their name from "Chesbar", so as to obscure their history
- How their board, and the people involved, involves more bankers, consultants, lawyers, and "dot.commers" than geologists and miners
- The amount of time it would take to actually move forward will be years (they haven't proven ANY resources yet, let alone moved to any sort of pre-feasibility or feasibility study yet)
- How critical this unproven leaching technology to any chance of success (and even with it, success will not be "guaranteed")

And maybe... just maybe... a move from $0.50 to $0.80 this year would be significant (although I would argue not with a penny stock)... if it hadn't dropped from $2.00 to begin with!

But, of course, you'll say this is all "lies", even though it is all from their official documents or actions.

You may think that putting money into an unlikely 2010 Guatemalan nickel mine is "investing". You have every right to think so. You are even allowed to delude youself into thinking there is some sort of "model" that justifies a $2.40 price for it (which represents a market capitialisation for the equity of well over $250 million, far in excess of 10x the book value).

But I don't.

Again post after post has that Fort can accept he is wrong, he has an on going attack that is out context or tries to re-write what I have said and for this I can't believe anyone would give Fort any credibility. Considering the barrage above, I could write forever to defend my position but an asshat like Fort has to have the last word.

Odd... all the "rewriting" / mis-stating / out of context stuff has been from you.

Seriously, you're like... an idiot savant. Just about everything you say is always wrong, and when you are confronted with that, you turn into "Jackass Rainman", posting nonsense at random, and nothing seems to get through. ("Yeah. Yeah. Gold is definitely a hedge for deflation. Definitely.")

As fun (and easy) as it is to laugh at your obvious disability, it is time to move on. Perhaps in the future... with one of your more "revealing" posts...