A Civilized Rebuttal to Charlie Munger

Dear Mr. Munger,

You and I have been down this road before, sir.

Nearly two years ago, I asked you to consider retracting your surprising characterization of folks like me -- those who choose to allocate a portion of their capital to gold -- as "jerks."

You see, I hail from a corner of the financial universe where investors from all walks of life converge to discuss ideas and investment strategies in an environment of mutual respect and decorum. It is my firm belief that once the discussion of a controversial topic deteriorates into efforts to cast aspersions upon the character of those with an opposing view, we abruptly exit the realm of civilized debate and sacrifice any opportunity to learn from each other in constructive ways.

That is why I was deeply disappointed to see that you chose to debase the tenor of the public debate on gold last week by stating your belief that "civilized people don't buy gold." Your full comment was rather bizarre, so I am compelled to repeat it in full: "I think gold is a great thing to sew onto your garments if you're a Jewish family in Vienna in 1939, but civilized people don't buy gold, they invest in productive businesses."

With all due respect, sir -- and I do still believe you are due much respect following a long career of well-documented accomplishments as an investor -- that statement is utterly indefensible. You are of course entitled to your opinions about gold, but I implore you to cease casting spurious judgments upon those individuals who may hold an opposing perspective. Just as before, I will kindly accept your apology for the particular phrasing employed; though this time around I'll know better than to hold my breath.

The word "civilized" carries with it an enormous weight of semantic baggage from centuries of unfortunate applications. That is a topic for another day. But I think it's important to note that many of the individuals opting to seek some financial shelter in gold are not the billionaires like yourself who are already set for life. In an environment where bonds and cash yield imperceptible nominal returns, and certainly for as long as government deficit-spending continues to launch into the stratosphere, gold offers a uniquely powerful alternative asset in which to park one's hard-earned capital.

Warren Buffett's own father, Rep. Howard Buffett, recognized the monetary role of gold in empowering the masses to protect themselves from the effects of uncontrolled spending in Washington. Back when you were a young lad, in an essay titled Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money, Buffett explained: "Far away from Congress is the real forgotten man, the taxpayer who foots the bill. He is in a different spot from the tax-eater or the business that makes millions from spending schemes. He cannot afford to spend his time trying to oppose Federal expenditures. He has to earn his own living and carry the burden of taxes as well." At the close of the piece, Buffett concluded: "There is no more important challenge facing us than this issue -- the restoration of your freedom to secure gold in exchange for the fruits of your labors."

I wonder, Mr. Munger, was Warren Buffett's father uncivilized?

Investing in productive businesses
Even as I take exception to your repeated assaults against the character of those who have seen fit to acquire some exposure to gold, I take pleasure in locating patches of common ground between us. I remain a big fan of your 2010 parable -- your cautionary tale in which a nation's addiction to casino gambling (derivatives) leaves foreigners, "particularly foreigners with savings to invest," deliberately avoiding that nation's currency and bonds.

At the time, I hailed your piece as "a timely attempt to instruct a nation in the basic foundations of fiscal solvency and the potential perils of our current trajectory." I consider it my duty to inform you, however, that any scenario involving a substantial decline in foreign demand for U.S. currency and bonds will necessarily invoke a major move into gold that would have wildly bullish implications for the metal's price. So if one were to grow wary of saving capital in U.S. dollars, but risks being labeled as uncivilized for looking instead to gold, I wonder...where would you have them go?

In your recent comment, you seem to offer equities as the superior choice. I certainly agree that investing in "productive businesses" is an essential component of a sound investment strategy, but surely you can see that gold and equities need not be mutually exclusive options for investors.

A reasonable allocation to gold or silver bullion has already proven an astonishingly effective means of safeguarding hard-earned capital during this ongoing period of structural distress in major fiat currencies. When I perceived the threat of a systemic financial crisis back in 2005, I began accumulating shares of the gold and silver bullion proxy Central Fund of Canada (AMEX: CEF  ) . That was one of the soundest investment decisions I've made! As the following chart will show, the bullion proxy has appreciated 280% over the past seven years.

CEF Chart

CEF data by YCharts

Of course, I continued to invest in productive businesses simultaneously. They just happened to be dominated by resource-related companies that fit within my bullish outlook for hard assets. I established early positions in runaway success stories Silver Wheaton (NYSE: SLW  ) and Eldorado Gold (NYSE: EGO  ) , and held my positions confidently through the massive correction in 2008.

Of course, not all of my mining stocks have performed as well, and indeed we are presently in the midst of a very substantial correction in the sector. I know you're a consummate value investor, so I wonder whether you have pondered the deep value built into a quality gold stock like Goldcorp (NYSE: GG  ) at current levels. Accordingly, I have maintained bullish CAPScalls on each of the above-named stocks for several years running.

I assure you, Mr. Munger, I am not a "jerk." And if I don't fit your definition of "civilized," then I'm quite sure I don't want to. But if you must stick solely to productive businesses while insulting those who hold gold bullion, then I recommend a bit of exposure to the quality miners. They may be volatile, and the industry has shown it is certainly not exempt from risk, but as the above chart illustrates, these miners on the whole are handily outperforming your own Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B  ) over the past several years.

Fool contributor Christopher Barker can be found blogging actively and acting Foolishly within the CAPS community under the username TMFSinchiruna. He tweets. He owns shares of Eldorado Gold, Goldcorp, and Silver Wheaton. The Motley Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Berkshire Hathaway. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (87) | Recommend This Article (54)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:22 AM, reinman60 wrote:

    Munger's statement, coming as it did right on the heels of David Einhorn's defense of his substantial gold position in the Greenlight Capital quarterly letter was particularly unfortunate. Where are the cries from Berkshire shareholder's demanding his resignation?

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:29 AM, jrs1000 wrote:

    Chris,

    There's a war going on against gold as you know. Governments and banksters are behind the war against gold of course as gold shines a bright light on their currency debasements.

    That being said, guys like Munger and Buffett are not stupid. They talk gold down not out of stupidity, but as Rothschilds agents. So, when they do their heaviest gold bashing, we know they are trying to shake us out of our gold. I use their bashing as a very bullish gold indicator myself. Same goes for the bought out media (bankster whores also) when they bash gold.

    My advice to all is to stay long your gold and gold stocks, and to back up the truck and buy some more here at the sale prices. Follow the Chinese instead of the bankster whores...

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:58 AM, SN3165 wrote:

    "Civilized people don't buy gold" - So basically China and India is full of uncivilized people.

    "I think gold is a great thing to sew onto your garments if you're a Jewish family in Vienna in 1939..."

    Both of these comments are pretty offensive to a lot of people.

    Gold is money.... Gold's value is in its rarity and in the effort it takes to get it out of the ground. It takes a lot of manpower, time and money to do this. It's not easy. And to do it profitably is even harder. Just watch that stupid Alaska show on the Discovery channel, although they are clearly gold mining amateurs, it's funny to watch.

    I have a simple question for people to ask: If you had the choice to hold your savings in the US Dollar or in gold coins, which would you choose? It's a simple question.

    I just think this is all common sense and would think people as "smart" as these two would understand the multiple reasons for owning gold. but JRS is probably right on the mark with the "Rothschilds agents" remark.

    Good work as always Sinch. I follow every gold analyst you can think of, and I think you deserve to be mentioned among the best of them.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:59 AM, NanooGeek wrote:

    Also to be considered is how much Berkshire firms/holdings benefited from TARP, and other noblesse largesse. Some have tallied the total bailout for those firms at $130 Billion.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 12:20 PM, buffalonate wrote:

    Gold's value is driven by fear. When the fear subsides gold will crash. Look at the chart for gold around 1980. Gold's value went straight up and straight down. That is the problem with gold. No one knows what it is worth because it doesn't provide earnings. Since Berkshire was founded its value has outpaced gold by a mile.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 12:26 PM, ryanalexanderson wrote:

    > Look at the chart for gold around 1980. Gold's value went straight up and straight down.

    Yeah, but a risk free 10-year treasury return hiked up to somewhere north of 10% in 1980 might have had something to do with it. I can't see people fleeing gold into a 1.8% bond.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 1:17 PM, SN3165 wrote:

    "No one knows what it is worth..."

    I do. It's worth whatever the paper currencies are worth. The lower they go, the higher gold goes.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 1:32 PM, buffalonate wrote:

    As a hedge against inflation I much prefer agricultural and oil stocks versus gold. I know how to value them and I have a good idea how much they will grow in 3 years. I have no clue what gold will be worth in 3 years. A lot of people buy gold because they fear total economic collapse. In that case I would much rather have a basement full of canned food than some gold.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 2:40 PM, SN3165 wrote:

    Canned food is good... I tell people just get out of the dollar. If youre keeping your money in a bank account you will lose...

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 2:43 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    <<If youre keeping your money in a bank account you will lose...>>

    This has always, always, always been true.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 2:51 PM, SN3165 wrote:

    TMFMorgan, Depends how far back we are going here. There was a time when you could actually keep your dollars in a bank account, hold it for 40 years, and expect it to hold the same value and retire on it...

    we all know what happened in 1971...

    This is the biggest contributing factors to the rise in class inequality IMO.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 2:55 PM, SN3165 wrote:

    ^ Whatever the money the poor has it kept in a bank account or under a mattress while those with money continually either match inflation or outpace it by investing it in stocks, real estate, bonds, etc.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 3:01 PM, SN3165 wrote:
  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 3:04 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    It was a pretty ghoulish comment to say that "uncivilized people" sewd gold into their garments in 1939.

    I would think it was the Nazis who were the uncivilized ones in that scenario, while the civilized ones were trying to protect their wealth (and their lives). I guess Munger disagrees.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 3:04 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    SN3165,

    Fair point. Although I'm reminded of this quote from a writer at the Economist:

    "While some people point out that all previous paper money systems have collapsed, I would counter than all metallic standard have been abandoned."

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 3:26 PM, SN3165 wrote:

    They've been abandoned but that doesn't mean they were a failure.... Collapse=failure. JMHO.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Abandoned is also a bit of a stretch.... forcibly revoked would be more like it.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 6:30 PM, rfaramir wrote:

    Yeah, you cannot coherently say that the free market abandoned a metallic standard when FDR's goons threatened forceful entry into your house, search, and seizure of your gold if you didn't turn it in for exchange with FRNs, which they greatly debased the following year.

    That was violence, not voluntary. Voluntary transactions characterize a free market, violence characterizes the State.

    We deserve the liberty to mutually decide with our trading partners what currency we will contract in.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 10:15 PM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    Should read " that statement is utterly indefensible." Period.

    IMO

    Sinchi,

    Your article is "right on".

    Sky

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:16 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote:

    <<It was a pretty ghoulish comment to say that "uncivilized people" sewd gold into their garments in 1939.>>

    Stop your misinformation, David. Munger never said that.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:19 PM, SN3165 wrote:

    "Abandoned is also a bit of a stretch.... forcibly revoked would be more like it."

    My thoughts exactly.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:21 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote:

    I realize that you cannot refrain from reacting viscerally to Munger's comments, David; however, misrepresenting someone's statements to suggest they are anti-Semitic is a dirty tactic.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:27 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    Alex,

    It had nothing to do with Munger's feelings towards Jews, nor did I imply that in my comment.

    Clearly, you realize that Munger was wrong, that there was nothing uncivilized about people trying to protect their wealth by hiding their gold. Of course, it is silly to point out to Munger that people have to sew gold in their clothes because Nazis are trying to exterminate them. It's also silly to point out that John Maynard Keynes supported Nazi Socialism.

    You obviously have no defense for Munger's commentary and have to pretend that you inferred something in my comment that wasn't there.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:39 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote:

    <<Clearly, you realize that Munger was wrong, that there was nothing uncivilized about people trying to protect their wealth by hiding their gold.>>

    Munger was not wrong, because he never suggested any such thing. This is what he said:

    "I think gold is a great thing to sew onto your garments if you're a Jewish family in Vienna in 1939, but civilized people don't buy gold, they invest in productive businesses."

    When he says that "gold is a great thing to sew onto your garments if you're a Jewish family in Vienna in 1939," he absolutely means it. When he says that "civilized people don't buy gold, they invest in productive businesses," he is obviously referring to people who do not find themselves in the exceptional circumstances of war and strife when one's life is potentially at risk, i.e. the circumstances of a Jewish family in Vienna in 1939.

    I realize that some conspiracy theorists (which are unusually prevalent in the goldbug population) believe that ordinary citizens today face the same kind of threat from the U.S. federal government that Jews did in Nazi Germany, but surely I don't need to address that.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:46 PM, SN3165 wrote:

    "I realize that some conspiracy theorists (which are unusually prevalent in the goldbug population)..."

    There are also a lot of level-headed, intelligent and free-thinking individuals who are "gold bugs" as well. Stereotypes are offensive.

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:51 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote:

    @SN3165

    Do you deny that conspiracy theorists are unusually prevalent among goldbugs?

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:56 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    Alex,

    I think it is you who reacts viscerally to everything I say, not I. Perhaps it's time you looked in the mirror.

    The point I am making has nothing to do with racial extermination practiced by States. It has to do with State violence versus individual liberty and social order.

    Munger is clearly stating that people who are persecuted by the government are not civilized people, regardless if he feels that the circumstances cause them to live in an uncivilized fashion.

    That's a typical Statist attitude, and nowhere in my original comment did I pontificate on racial tones.

    Regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the fine wine they drink, or the pomp and circumstance surrounding them, the State is an uncivilized and barbaric institution. The Nazi State happened to take this to a new low. People being persecuted by a State do not live an uncivilized existence. Nothing could be more civilized than trying to live peacefully, which is all they were doing as they sewd gold into their clothes.

    Munger's not a racist. He's not an idiot. He made a comment that extremely narrow minded and stupid, most likely due to his ideological belief in the power of the State and distrust of the free market.

    You read it into what you wanted. Simple as that. You can't even get two comments into a conversation with me without pulling the conspiracy card.

    Visceral, indeed.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 10, 2012, at 11:59 PM, SN3165 wrote:

    I don't know to be honest, that's not important to me... it's still a stereotype... I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:02 AM, TMFAleph1 wrote:

    "Munger is clearly stating that people who are persecuted by the government are not civilized people,.."

    That's not what he is stating at all. There is no point in going any further, if you're getting stuck at the reading comprehension level.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:05 AM, InvestWhatWorks wrote:

    The first part of your open letter... phoney-outrage at its finest. Kudos.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:07 AM, whereaminow wrote:

    That is clearly what he is stating. And you're embarrassed now because you thought I was making a racial point, which is the typical visceral reaction of a Statist. I notice you have backed off that now that you realize how foolish you look.

    Let's go ahead and end this nonsense.

    Please name the Conspiracy Theory that I believe in.

    Provide a link and quotes.

    Thanks.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:09 AM, SN3165 wrote:

    Can we all at least agree that JPMorgan is an absolute disgrace?

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:26 AM, InvestWhatWorks wrote:

    @whereaminow

    You postulated that Munger might disagree with your statement:

    "I would think it was the Nazis who were the uncivilized ones in that scenario, while the civilized ones were trying to protect their wealth (and their lives)."

    If Munger were to disagree with that statement, as you suggest, one might think that you are saying saying "Munger thinks the Nazis were civilized." That's is what TMFAleph1 is referencing.

    If you didn't meant to suggest that, I'll certainly take you at your word. But that's how and where this argument between the two of you started.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:31 AM, whereaminow wrote:

    Invest,

    Thanks for your opinion. Alex thought I was calling Munger an Anti-Semite. The rest of this is his effort to change the subject once it became clear I was making no such connection.

    "I realize that you cannot refrain from reacting viscerally to Munger's comments, David; however, misrepresenting someone's statements to suggest they are anti-Semitic is a dirty tactic." TMFAleph1

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 1:44 AM, kyleleeh wrote:

    <<There was a time when you could actually keep your dollars in a bank account, hold it for 40 years, and expect it to hold the same value and retire on it.>>

    Considering that FDIC did not exist prior to FDR confiscating everyone's gold, I would argue that a great many people suffered losses as high as 100% on the gold based dollars they deposited in banks. It's easy for the government to insure accounts that are made up of something they can print more of, it's a little more complicated when the government has to come up with gold to cover those lost accounts ...metal based currencies do have a down side to them as well.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 1:57 AM, lesailes wrote:

    I thought that this was a civilised article because it abused no-one and argued its points clearly and accurately. The number of less clearly thought out responses is a bit disturbing...

    Opinions are cheap...

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 7:02 AM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    On May 10, 2012, at 11:39 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote

    “I realize that some conspiracy theorists (which are unusually prevalent in the gold bug population) “

    TMF Aleh1,

    What sources do you use to support this statement?

    It is not based on fact.

    IMO, using labels and making statements that have no basis in fact, add nothing of value to the discussion.

    Sky

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 7:04 AM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    On May 10, 2012, at 11:51 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote:

    "Do you deny that conspiracy theorists are unusually prevalent among goldbugs?"

    Yes.

    Sky

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 8:44 AM, devoish wrote:

    <<There's a war going on against gold as you know. Governments and banksters are behind the war against gold of course as gold shines a bright light on their currency debasements.>> jrs1000

    <<I just think this is all common sense and would think people as "smart" as these two would understand the multiple reasons for owning gold. but JRS is probably right on the mark with the "Rothschilds agents" remark.>> sn3165

    <<Also to be considered is how much Berkshire firms/holdings benefited from TARP, and other noblesse largesse. >> nanoogeek

    <<Abandoned is also a bit of a stretch.... forcibly revoked would be more like it.>> Frankdontfailmenow

    <<Yeah, you cannot coherently say that the free market abandoned a metallic standard when FDR's goons threatened forceful entry into your house, search, and seizure of your gold if you didn't turn it in for exchange with FRNs, which they greatly debased the following year.>> rfaramir

    <<On May 10, 2012, at 11:39 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote

    “I realize that some conspiracy theorists (which are unusually prevalent in the gold bug population) “

    TMF Aleh1,

    What sources do you use to support this statement?

    It is not based on fact.>> skypilot2005

    <<"Do you deny that conspiracy theorists are unusually prevalent among goldbugs?"

    Yes.

    Sky>> skypilot2005

    Note to Skypilot2005: We don't need "sources". We can do our own research on this one.

    That was actually pretty funny.

    Best wishes,

    Steven

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Alex, do you deny that Munger's comments were racist?

    Munger insists that gold investors are uncivilized. Chinese and Indian people heavily invest in gold. He is calling them uncivilized.

    This is the equivelant of British settlers calling Cherokee tribe Native Americans uncivilized for using wompum as currency.

    As a Jewish American I had a visceral reaction to the 'Jews in Vienna' comment. He probably didn't intend this in an anti-semitic way. I don't, however, believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt considering the racist nature of his 'uncivilized' comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 9:34 AM, XMFSinchiruna wrote:

    I repeat:

    "I hail from a corner of the financial universe where investors from all walks of life converge to discuss ideas and investment strategies in an environment of mutual respect and decorum. It is my firm belief that once the discussion of a controversial topic deteriorates into efforts to cast aspersions upon the character of those with an opposing view, we abruptly exit the realm of civilized debate and sacrifice any opportunity to learn from each other in constructive ways."

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 9:34 AM, whereaminow wrote:

    Steven,

    I know history isn't your strong suit, but are you actually telling us that it's a conspiracy theory that FDR issued an Executive Order outlawing private ownership of gold?

    I mean, there is this thing called a Google search. You should try it before you make a fool of yourself next time.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 9:35 AM, whereaminow wrote:

    It's ok for ETFsRule and Alex to call people idiots and twist their words.

    They're civilized.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Honestly ETFsRule? Our central banks hold more gold, is that really your line of reasoning?

    Please take some time to educate yourself.

    http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/the-indians-craze-for-go...

    In fairness to ETFsRule I did call him asinine a while back when he was arguing that the employment picture in the United States was swell. So I'll let the insult pass this time, but please don't let your personal feelings influence your reasoning. We get it, your a Keynesian and hate gold.

    Indian and Chinese PEOPLE are buying gold at an alarming rate. Calling them uncivilized is racist. Munger owes them an apology. Not really all that complicated.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Looks like some comments were removed. For those confused ETFsrule was arguing that I'm an idiot because the American and European nations have more aggregate gold than India and China.... he knows that India and China are relatively poor to countries, and that the central banks of the US and many European countries have been holding gold for decades.

    Interestingly though, if you follow Munger and ETFsrule's logic, central bankers are uncivilized for holding gold. Ron Paul should follow up his question, "why do central banks hold gold" with, "why are you so uncivilized Dr. Bernanke?"

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 10:54 AM, ETFsRule wrote:

    "It's ok for ETFsRule and Alex to call people idiots and twist their words."

    When did I ever twist someone's words? Please, support this accusation.

    And, explain to me how it is worse for me to call someone an "idiot", when they have just called Mr Munger a racist? To me, being called a racist is much more offensive, especially in today's society.

    But apparently TMF's editors agree with you. They deleted my comment, while allowing Franky's racist comment to stay up.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 11:02 AM, ETFsRule wrote:

    Honestly David, it's pathetic that you feel the need to stick up for anyone who even remotely agrees with your political positions.

    I'm a liberal, but if another liberal says something stupid, I will call them out on it.

    For you, that is obviously not the case.

    Let's see if you can answer a direct "yes or no" question without twisting it around or avoiding it:

    Do you agree with Franky that Munger's comment was racist towards Indian and Chinese people?

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 11:05 AM, ETFsRule wrote:

    "For those confused ETFsrule was arguing that I'm an idiot because the American and European nations have more aggregate gold than India and China"

    Not exactly, that was just an example. It doesn't necessarily matter if American and European nations have more aggregate gold than India or China.

    The reason you are an idiot, is because you tried to argue that Mr Munger's comment was racist, when obviously his comment had nothing to do with race. Your entire premise is idiotic.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 11:11 AM, ETFsRule wrote:

    "http://www.caclubindia.com/articles/the-indians-craze-for-go...

    Nice article.

    Please, try to use your brain for 2 seconds.

    Yes, demand for gold has increased in India and China. Well, guess what? They are emerging markets, and their demand for everything is increasing. Their demand for stocks has also exploded in recent years. So has their demand for iPhones.

    If someone said, "anyone who buys stocks or cell phones is uncivilized"... would that be an inherently racist comment directed towards India and China?

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 11:33 AM, whereaminow wrote:

    ETFsRule

    "Honestly David, it's pathetic that you feel the need to stick up for anyone who even remotely agrees with your political positions."

    Where does that come from? You are really reaching now. It sucks when you dig yourself a hole, doesn't it?

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 11:49 AM, whereaminow wrote:

    "To me, being called a racist is much more offensive, especially in today's society."

    ROFL as pot calls kettle black!

    "Or maybe they just feel a certain sense of nostalgia for those old signs that read, "negroes need not apply".- ETFsRule, Dec 9 2009 referring to Libertarians

    http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/etfsrules-december-walk-of/308651

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 11:59 AM, ETFsRule wrote:

    "Where does that come from?"

    I called out Franky for calling Munger racist, and then you stood up for him. It seems pretty straightforward. I just want to know if you really agree with Franky's position in this discussion, or if you are just trying to be argumentative based on politics.

    "You are really reaching now."

    Nope. It's really quite simple.

    "It sucks when you dig yourself a hole, doesn't it?"

    Huh?

    "Let's see if you can answer a direct "yes or no" question without twisting it around or avoiding it:

    Do you agree with Franky that Munger's comment was racist towards Indian and Chinese people?"

    I guess I have my answer.

    "ROFL as pot calls kettle black!"

    Not at all. My intention with that blog was to offend Libertarians.

    Unlike Franky, I fully understand the offensiveness of calling someone a racist.

    And, unlike Libertarians, Mr Munger does not have a history of sending out racist newsletters or calling Martin Luther King a "tool".

    Now, can you answer my earlier question? A simple one-word answer is all that I am asking for.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:14 PM, catoismymotor wrote:

    >>And, unlike Libertarians, Mr Munger does not have a history of sending out racist newsletters or calling Martin Luther King a "tool".<<

    What? Tell me who did this so I can dispatch a strongly worded letter. No real libertarian would do such a thing.

    >>My intention with that blog was to offend Libertarians.<<

    Well then, I respectfully fart in your general direction..

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:19 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    ETFsRule,

    "I called out Franky for calling Munger racist, and then you stood up for him. It seems pretty straightforward. I just want to know if you really agree with Franky's position in this discussion, or if you are just trying to be argumentative based on politics."

    I called you out for saying "you are an idiot". I made no defense of Franky's position. He is my friend, but I have not said one peep on this entire thread about Munger being a racist nor have I said one peep in support of Franky's position.

    I have made it clear (how much clearer can I be?) that I don't think Munger is a racist. Review the line above where I say "Munger is not a racist."

    Is that not clear?

    So yeah, keep digging.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:24 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    So his first blog on CAPS was written to intentionally offend people... And people think I'm the one that is insulting.

    Funny thing is, if you read that blog, my first two or three responses to the misinformation he and Jakila provided are direct and professional.

    But then I learned my lesson... And people think that I'm the one that is insulting....

    And of course, never mind that after 3 years of many people (not including myself) patiently trying to explain their views to him, ETFsRule still hasn't listened or learned a darn thing and continues to say the same insulting lines over and over again.

    But I'm the jerk. Got it.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:38 PM, dag154 wrote:

    He is a good investor but I think he is a bit of a pshyco.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 12:59 PM, ETFsRule wrote:

    "What? Tell me who did this so I can dispatch a strongly worded letter. No real libertarian would do such a thing."

    Cato: it was the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr. Here is the exact quote:

    "I never liked Martin Luther King, Jr. I thought he was a fraud and a tool."

    David insists that this quote has absolutely nothing to do with race, but personally I find that hard to believe.

    What do you think... am I crazy on this one??

    "Well then, I respectfully fart in your general direction.. "

    lol. I'll accept that. It was a blog from 3 years ago, and certain Libertarians on this site were being quite obnoxious at the time (not you).

    "Is that not clear?"

    Ok, good enough for me. We are in agreement that Franky's depiction of Mr Munger is inaccurate and offensive.

    I'm not sure why you got so worked up about my blog, yet right now you are letting Franky off the hook for calling someone a racist.

    "Funny thing is, if you read that blog, my first two or three responses to the misinformation he and Jakila provided are direct and professional. "

    You were respectful for 5 minutes, good for you.

    My blog was a direct response to your tactics of not only insulting anyone who disagrees with you, but also twisting their words and constantly misrepresenting their beliefs.

    Yes, I understand that most libertarians are not racist. My blog still served its purpose.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 1:08 PM, dragonLZ wrote:

    I think whereaminow actually deserves a big compliment for being very civilized in this very heated discussion.

    Just weeks ago, he would have no problem telling somebody who holds an opposing view: "F. off, you moron".

    Now, he even gets offended by uncivilized people like ETFsRule and Alex.

    Wow, what a transformation.

    Congrats.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 1:24 PM, XMFSinchiruna wrote:

    I repeat:

    "I hail from a corner of the financial universe where investors from all walks of life converge to discuss ideas and investment strategies in an environment of mutual respect and decorum. It is my firm belief that once the discussion of a controversial topic deteriorates into efforts to cast aspersions upon the character of those with an opposing view, we abruptly exit the realm of civilized debate and sacrifice any opportunity to learn from each other in constructive ways."

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Um. Lew Rockwell is a racist for not liking someone who happens to be of African American descent whereas Munger is not a racist... because Chinese people also buy Iphones? Seriously twisted logic, have a good day ETFsRule.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    I never called Munger a racist. He may not be. I said his comments were racist. He might not have meant what he said. He might have been ignorant as to the Chinese and Indian gold demand.

    If he clarifies his comments and apologizes then the topic is dead forever. If he simply says, "I meant unwise... I believe productive companies to be a wiser choice, but individuals that instead choose to invest in gold are perfectly civilized. While I disagree with their investment choice for many reasons, I apologize for the unwise word choice." Then the issue would be dead forever.

    He probably should also add that these Chinese and Indian investors have been CRUSHING him for the last decade. He could even apologize to shareholders for his weak relative investment choice. Maybe the long run will prove Munger's thesis correct... we'll see.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 2:05 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    Dragon,

    And I'm sure nothing preceded that comment right? It was just out of the blue, heh. Yeah, funny how that always works that way.

    NBA referees are great at only seeing the retaliatory shot. I think some of you guys are would fit in well there.

    TMFSinch,

    You're right. I shouldn't stoop to their level and they shouldn't stoop to mine.

    But there's something way bigger going on here. Some of TMF's writers and commentors are having their belief systems seriously challenged (outside of the boring old talking points from the fake Left/Right paradigm) for the first time in their lives. They can no longer just dismiss us as fringe wackos who worship a silly, yellow metal.

    And it drives them nuts.

    And that applies to Charlie Munger as well.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 2:38 PM, catoismymotor wrote:

    >>>Cato: it was the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr. Here is the exact quote:

    "I never liked Martin Luther King, Jr. I thought he was a fraud and a tool."<<<

    I have to admit that when I read the quote (on page 289 in I Chose Liberty on Google Books) and think of it in the context of the day I don't read anything *racist* in it. I think Rockwell approached the subject from a political/philosophical perspective. I think he objected to MLK's aim to change society through the police power of the federal government. Rockwell would have approved of society recognizing the problem of Jim Crow laws and solving it on a state by state basis.

    As far as MLK being a *fraud* I disagree with this assessment. What fraud would put his life on the line for a dishonest persuit. And calling him a *tool* I think was done because he felt someone behind the scenes was using him for their own ends.

    - Cato

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 2:40 PM, dragonLZ wrote:

    "And I'm sure nothing preceded that comment right? It was just out of the blue, heh. Yeah, funny how that always works that way."

    whereaminow, somebody always starts first.

    Are you suggesting it's always the other guy (and you had not-so-civilized discussions with many guys). Can it be that's always them.

    Or take Franky, for example, two days ago, he had no problem calling people jerks and losers (before those people ever said a word to him) or even mental midgets.

    Today, that same Franky gets offended by Munger for calling him a jerk and an uncivilized person.

    Yes, shame on you Mr. Munger.

    p.s.

    Don't think I don't know I'm no different than you and Franky (and even TMFSinchiruna) as it cannot be always that the other guys started first...

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 3:09 PM, dragonLZ wrote:

    TMFSinchiruna, first of all, let me say I agree with you Mr. Munger is not such a nice or well-spoken person for saying things that he said.

    Calling others names (especially for buying gold, wood, bricks,...anything legal) is wrong.

    But, please be honest. What was the purpose of your post? What did you try to accomplish?

    Didn't you expect something like this (let's call it a "discussion")?

    When I read your article, I saw two purposes:

    1. Rally PM (your) supporters around the idea that Mr. Munger is offending them (which I agree he did), and

    2. Show that PM's and PM- related stocks have been kicking some serious butt, and that you and your supporters were right and Mr. Munger was wrong.

    If I'm wrong, please let me know, but if I'm right, then a "discussion" like this was to be expected.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    Hold the phone dragonLZ. Are you serious? I was defending SN from your unwarranted attacks. Here is the blog: http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/silver-stocks-are-dirt-cheap/7328...

    You attacked SN, by questioning his guru status on his personal blog. I defended him, and yes called you a loser. You are. I stand by that. I called Evil Empire a mental midget as after he said this to say to me, "Franky, didn't your mother teach you to think before you speak?" The comment has been removed now.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 3:29 PM, TheDumbMoney2 wrote:

    I just can't stop thinking of a dear family friend of ours who bought a ton of gold and silver in 1980-1981ish, and stuck it in a safety deposit box in California. He now lives in a foreign country, but returned recently to the US to retrieve the gold/silver, because he not only thinks he "was right," but because he thinks even as of six months ago when he returned that the whole financial system and all paper currencies are going to come crashing down. Meanwhile, he has lost tons of money on his original investment in gold, in inflation-adjusted terms. Likely he is even now as I write buying more, and I know for a fact he has sold none, and he bought none in 1999 at a time of maximum world optimism, which was when Gundlach bought, and which was an excellent time to speculate on gold.

    With regard to Einhorn, good to keep in mind how agnostic and short-term oriented he is. I too think gold may be a decent speculative investment at least until 2014, from today's prices anyway. One thing I can promise you Einhorn does not think, having read both his HuffPo piece and otherwise listenened to his comments, is that gold is going to $10K, or that paper money will end, or that gold held for thirty years will outperform well-picked common stocks. He views it as a reasonable hedge given current circumstances, including what is going on in Europe, and given real yields on US debt. He has also lost a bunch of money on his gold miners trade.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 3:48 PM, dragonLZ wrote:

    Franky, so it's the other guys that made you use language like "loser", "mental midget", "jerk", (without those other guys ever using a language like that).

    I don't know if you knew, but the words you speak (or write) are your choice only.

    I said I wasn't nice to SN (but feel did have the right to "disagree" with him calling himself a guru), but never called him a loser, jerk, or mental midget.

    Also, why do you keep saying "on his personal blog" when he is directing people to his site and recommending they follow him into buying SLW and junior miners.

    What's personal about that?

    And please start being honest.

    You entered that discussion just because you share the same views as SN when it comes to PM's. Stop pretending you were saving SN from my "attacks".

    If we happened to talk about BAC, you would never act the same as you did.

    Being down 35% on the same call SN has made is what was hurting you, not my "guru remark". And you know it.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    "I don't know if you knew, but the words you speak (or write) are your choice only."

    Lol, when did I suggest otherwise? You called me out on this post with no reference to the fact that I was defending a nice guy. Yes, I was being a jerk (and admitted as much paranthetically when I called you a loser).... I will continue to be a jerk to jerks ok.

    I promise that, if you acted the way you did on SN's blog to anyone else about any other stock, I will similarly call you a loser. If you go on Valys new post about buying JPM (even though I'm annoyed with Valyoo right now) I would call you a loser.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    And yes, I defended SN because I like him, and I like him because we follow some of the same stocks and think similarly. It's called being human.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 4:10 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    catoismymotor,

    The full quote from Rockwell says, "... but then he started speaking out against the Vietnam War, and I started to like him."

    Pulling back even further, the entire piece is about Statism vs. Individual Liberty. It has nothing to do with race.

    The problem here is simple. Statists see everything through a racial prism. They are collectivists. I understand it. I understand why ETFsRule figures that it's a racist comment. He's wrong, but I get it.

    But they don't understand how we (and Lew Rockwell, in that case) see things through a State vs. Individual Liberty prism. They can't grasp that. Which is why ETF's refuses to see anything in Lew's commentary except racism, even though there is clearly no racial aspect to his essay.

    What can you do?

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 5:29 PM, XMFSinchiruna wrote:

    DragonLZ,

    This is not a discussion. This is a brawl, and a truly disappointing display from all involved.

    Your 2 presumptions listed above are both false. I wrote the letter that needed to be written.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 6:22 PM, InvestWhatWorks wrote:

    Oh, look. About 30-additional replies of phoney-outrage. Surprise, surprise. Haha.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 7:08 PM, devoish wrote:

    <<I know history isn't your strong suit, but are you actually telling us that it's a conspiracy theory that FDR issued an Executive Order outlawing private ownership of gold?>> David in Liberty in the USA.

    I guess if that's what you want to tell people, go right ahead and post it. I am petty sure that I posted a few more quotes concerning the possibility that there are a very high percentage of conspiracy theorists buying gold.

    TMFAleph1 aked this question which was challenged.

    <<@SN3165

    Do you deny that conspiracy theorists are unusually prevalent among goldbugs?>>

    In my reply I pointed out the obvious conspiracy theorists in this thread.

    Research and free thinking is my strong suit. That's why I am not misled by your economic politics.

    By the way. Global warming is real. Global warming is manmade by dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Nothing matters more.

    There is no conspiracy among climate scientists to lie to us.

    Best wishes,

    Steven

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 8:10 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    So it's not a Conspiracy Theory that FDR forcibly confiscated gold? Trying real hard to understand you, Steven.

    Is it or is it not? I mean, 50% of the 4 quotes you chose that show a "very high percentage of conspiracy theorists buy gold" had to do with that event.

    Are you now backing down from your insinuation?

    And I find it amusing that you have to pre-emptively tell us that AGW is not a conspiracy theory, but not believing it is. You must be misunderstood. NOT believing in a theory is skepticism.

    I'm sure that none of your beliefs have anything to do with your politics. Heck, you're an Ayn Rand-ian you're so Objective and above all that pettiness. Well done.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 8:33 PM, rodnog wrote:

    Wow David, you are what the kids today call a troll, and you're really very good at it.

    Just from an external observer's perspective:

    1. Make a comment that mis-represents Munger's statement, and that can be interpreted as implying that it was racist (without actually saying it).

    2. Feign innocence.

    3. Pretend you've won the debate.

    I have no opinion either way about gold, but this comments section isn't very civilised.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2012, at 11:04 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    Thanks for sharing those deep thoughts.

    I can't change your world view. If you want to think I was implying he's a racist, even after i make it perfectly clear I'm talking about State power (uncivilized) vs. Individual Liberty (civilized), then I'm not the one with the problem. You are.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2012, at 8:41 AM, TSIF wrote:

    I'm not sure either of Charlie's two comments warrant any sort of apology. Calling someone a "jerk", though it has four letters is not terribly vicious, but a civilized man could probably have have chosen his words more carefully. Calling somone interested in gold "uncivilized" doesn't seem overly harsh either if one is trying to express a point of view and get people thinking.

    Whether they agree or not, getting people to analyze thier beliefs is generally healthy, unfortunately, most of us prefer to react to a "word" in a statement instead of analyze why we disagree.

    Blogs like this can help and this is certainly a plus one for the blog and a plus one for those who read it and make the attempt. We don't have the little thumbs up and thumbs down for individual remarks, so I can't rate them.

    It's certainly human nature to throw up a wall rather than examine the perceived rock that came over it.

    Personally, Mr. Munger's circle of friends and outlook is different from mine. I don't know what he defines as civilized. I'd tend to think that I don't fit his definitiion of civilized, I can't hang at his social clubs without sticking out, but then again, I'm perfectly fine with the bowling alley or shooting hoops in the parking lot. An elbow in the gut or a little sweat may not be as civilized as a country club, but to each his own.

    A little bit of gold/silver in the matress can add support, too much gets lumpy.

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2012, at 10:50 AM, HarryCarysGhost wrote:

    Well put TSIF.

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2012, at 10:53 AM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    On May 12, 2012, at 8:41 AM, TSIF wrote:

    "Blogs like this can help and this is certainly a plus one for the blog and a plus one for those who read it and make the attempt.”

    “A little bit of gold/silver in the matress can add support, too much gets lumpy”

    Well said.

    Nice example of conveying an opinion in a civilized manner.

    Sky

  • Report this Comment On May 13, 2012, at 7:26 AM, devoish wrote:

    <<And I find it amusing that you have to pre-emptively tell us that AGW is not a conspiracy theory, but not believing it is. You must be misunderstood.>>

    Be amused if you like, but you did not misunderstand me.

    Believing in global warming, and that it is being caused by CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere by people is following the evidence where it leads.

    Not believing in global warming requires denying the evidence all around you and the physical realities of the world.

    Not believing that it is caused by CO2 requires believing that the many alternatives to CO2 theories that were possible thirty years ago have not been studied and included in current theory.

    For some, denying global warming is caused by CO2 requires believing that scientists are are more motivated by six figure grant money, than the oil industry is by six figure paychecks on the rigs, or million dollar paychecks in the office.

    <<So it's not a Conspiracy Theory that FDR forcibly confiscated gold? Trying real hard to understand you, Steven.>> - David in Liberty, in the USA.

    You are trying hard to misunderstand me, as anyone can see.

    My post was in support of TMFAleph's contention that conspiracy theorists are in higher numbers in the gold buyer population than elsewhere and I provided the evidence for it with quotes from this thread.

    As SN1365 pointed out; <<

    There are also a lot of level-headed, intelligent and free-thinking individuals who are "gold bugs" as well. Stereotypes are offensive.>>

    Which was certainly more true ten years ago than it is today. Right now, I think think the level headed intelligent people have been selling to the conspiracy theorists. Like I have said in the past, to me, gold is a useless decoration which can only be traded for something that actually does have value. And just like paper money it only gained that much status when a Government stamped it into coin.

    Consider this quote; "The stone was used in religion, art, trade, treaty negotiations as well as for jewelry".

    That quote concerns turquoise, and could also be about Jade or diamonds or ruby's.

    Gold money is more easily stamped with a governments face than turquiose.

    Paper money even more easily.

    Gold is really not different than paper money, unless you consider how wasteful and unproductive it is to mine gold in a polluted world attempting to restrict its energy resources to fossil fuels.

    Best wishes,

    Steven

  • Report this Comment On May 13, 2012, at 3:18 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    Steven,

    I think you're trying to set some kind of record here. How many different subjects can you talk about than the actual question I proposed?

    Is it or is it not a conspiracy theory that FDR confiscated the people's gold?

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On May 13, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    lol, brain dump about CO2. Thanks for joining the debate devoish.

    I think Steven is onto something. Socialists actively engage in the conspiracy theory that all gold-bugs disagree with the theory of man induced global warming. What else could explain Steven bringing up global warming when it had no business in the discussion.

    Especially considering that most socialists nations are uncivilized (they hoard much of the world's gold) and considering that all gold-bugs are conspiracy theorists (or so the mentally challenged statists claim) Steven is implicitly stating that all Socialist are conspiracy theorists.

    Since conspiracy theorists are a joke, I certainly agree with his conclusion that socialists are a joke.

    Is this what it feels like to be at the intelligence level of a Socialist..... I think I just walked a few paragraphs in Steven's shoes.

  • Report this Comment On May 14, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    (Bloomberg) -- Gold ETF Assets in India Top Record 100 Billion Rupees in April

    Assets in bullion-backed funds in India, the biggest gold user, exceeded a record 100 billion rupees in April as investors bought the metal for a haven and to diversify away from stocks.

    Gold exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, had 102.2 billion rupees ($1.9 billion) as of April 30, more than double the 48 billion rupees a year ago and up from 98.9 billion rupees in March, the Association of Mutual Funds in India said in data on its website on May 11.

    Holdings in bullion ETFs globally were 2,383.395 metric tons on May 11, the highest level this month, data tracked by Bloomberg show. Gold futures in India traded near the all-time high reached in December, climbing to within 0.5 percent of the record on May 3 as a weaker local currency boosted prices, while the nation’s benchmark stock index had its biggest weekly decline of 2012 last week.

    “The perception in India is at least you don’t make a loss in gold. It’s a safe investment,” Kishore Narne, head of research at AnandRathi Commodities Ltd., said by phone from Mumbai. “When the equity market is not looking attractive and the headline space is grabbed by gold, more investors are being diverted into gold.”

    Bullion for June delivery fell 0.1 percent to 28,335 rupees per 10 grams on the Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. as at 10:48 a.m. in Mumbai. Futures are up 3.7 percent this year.

    “Gold was traditionally a jewelry-based market, now it’s turning into an investor-based market,” in India, said Narne. Investors will continue to buy gold while prices in India are above 25,000 rupees to 26,000 rupees per 10 grams, he said.

    Assets in ETFs were also boosted during the month by buying for an auspcious festival day and as prices rose, said Chirag Mehta, fund manager with Quantum Asset Management Co. in Mumbai.

  • Report this Comment On May 14, 2012, at 9:27 AM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    On May 14, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Frankydontfailme wrote

    From Bloomberg:

    “as investors bought the metal for a haven and to diversify away from stocks.”

    Hmmm.

    Diversify……

    I wonder if they were “civilized” investors.

    :)

    Sky

  • Report this Comment On May 16, 2012, at 4:26 PM, richthegeek wrote:

    Good response, Sinch - that rebuttal was indeed civilized. Unfortunately the comment section wasn't. Sad, because usually there is much to be learned from the comments as well. Guess it was an off day.

    Rich

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2012, at 1:58 AM, CoreAndExplore wrote:

    Wow at the goldbugs on this thread, just wow.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1884257, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/23/2014 8:47:47 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement