Forum Archive Index - February 2004

["Russell" <allanrussell90@hotmail.com>]

Baa Baa,
I think you are very wise, we had a scam in new zealand a while ago,
identical to a previous californian scam, where you "brought" gold paid for
its storage, and insurance, but guess what at the end of the day when
everyone wanted their gold, it dident exist.
I feel its a good high proffit bussiness being in, being paid to store and
insure nothing.
Where are all those fools and their money when I need them?
Allan.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Baa Baa" <baa_baa@hotmail.com>
To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] Goldmoney website


> 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/
>
>

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