Sharechat Logo

Forum Archive Index - January 2004

Please note usage of the Forum is subject to the Terms & Conditions.

 
Messages by Date [ Next by Date Previous by Date ]
Messages by Thread [ Next by Thread Previous by Thread ]
Post to the Forum [ New message Reply to this message ]
Printable version
 

Re: [sharechat] Goldmoney website


From: "Baa Baa" <baa_baa@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:34:07 +0000


Robin,

That's an interesting stat. In context with my other posts on the subject 
the basis for me is simple. No one looks after my gold but me. Its a 
perspective I don't like to complicate with liquidity, its about trust, 
although partly a lack of trust, it's mainly about having fewer 
counterparties to have to trust. I always know where my gold is and I can 
reassure myself by looking at it, holding it.

If people are happy with someone else looking after their gold then that's 
their business.

rgds
BAA



-----------------
BAA - assume you know all about e-gold.com ?

I was speaking to one of the founders of e-gold a while back and,
apparently, New Zealanders are (proportionally) over-represented in
terms of e-gold activity,

Regards

Robin

On 28 Jan 2004, at 10:28, Baa Baa wrote:

>Chris,
>
>Although I like the presmise behind e-transations underpinned in gold, I'd 
>have to say that 1. I don't use it, and 2. I suspect few do either. It's so 
>-contradictory- imo. Electronic transfer of an 'entry' in an 'electronic 
>database' which is -supposedly- linked to a physical -gold- deposit is, 
>imo, strange bedfellows, at this point in time. Firstly, gold is a physical 
>thing, tangible, real, intrinsic, basic. But, e-transactions are a 
>-mechanism- to make some funds transfer, reliant on the e-regime, and 
>e-availabiliy (of computer/network systems) to effect the transfer. The two 
>don't gel imo, yet. I only own gold (and sludge) as insurance, even 
>although my % exceeds common guidelines, so, I can't reconcile the notion 
>as yet why I would move to underpin my e-transactions in a metal when the 
>-mechanism- itself is inherently risky BUT the underlying asset is not. 
>Frankly, there's no need to. We can prepare ourselves through separatist 
>investment in intrinsic value while maintaiing participation in daily 
>transactions which leverage advanced technologies. Personally, I don't see 
>a compelling need yet to blend the two. It may come, but until my employers 
>pay me in metals, I'll be happy to daily use e-banking, Paypal, e-Bill, 
>Billpay, ... or whatever, before I present my metal as liquidity for a 
>day-to-day transaction.
>
>Did any of this make sense?
>BAA

_________________________________________________________________
Find your perfect match @  http://personals.xtramsn.co.nz   with XtraMSN 
Personals!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/


Replies

 
Messages by Date [ Next by Date: Re: [sharechat] Goldmoney website robin benson
Previous by Date: RE: [sharechat] Marshall Law in the USA? Gavin Treadgold ]
Messages by Thread [ Next by Thread: Re: [sharechat] Goldmoney website robin benson
Previous by Thread: Re: [sharechat] Goldmoney website Woody Woody ]
Post to the Forum [ New message Reply to this message ]

IRG See IRG research reports