Talk:Gold as an investment/Archive 3

Page Undos

I'm not sure what this added tag does, but the edit war reached a truce by removal of the offending statement. Personally, I would like to see it reinstated because it is an analyists opinion contained in the cited Gold newsletter and is not presented as a infallable prediction of the future. Prestonp 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a recent edit regarding the Gold v. Stocks section. Ted Frank added that stocks payout dividends and added a POV tag to analysis of the graph. I undid that edit because the idea of paying dividends is just one way of a "return on value" which is already in the section. In addition, the majority of stocks today actually don't pay dividends, so it's a bit misleading. As far as the analysis of the graph, that's not really subject to a POV tag. The graph clearly shows cyclical periods where stocks far outperform gold followed by periods where the significantly underperform gold. Prestonp 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) See WP:CRYSTAL. Stating the trends for the next ten years is entirely speculative. Stating it as fact, rather than one analyst's prediction, violates NPOV.

2) Failing to mention the possibility of reinvested dividends when comparing stock market indices to gold prices completely invalidates any such comparison. Someone holding a portfolio of the Dow 30 would have gained much more than the mere increase in the value of the Dow, which does not include dividend payouts, and thus grossly undervalues the benefits of stock ownership. THF 04:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ted. Actually it's much easier for economists to predict long term trends (i.e. 10 years or more) than it is to predict short term trends. Thus defeating your argument. 2. See text I wrote above your response. I suppose I should go ahead and point out that you are the latest equities advocate to come to this article and seek to change it to be more pro-stock. The last studious discussion we had was what lead to the inclusuon of the Dow-Gold ratio. It pleased the stockies because it showed the progression of stocks over a 200+ year time frame and it pleased me because it clearly suggests what Warren Buffett has already explicitinly said and that's that "equities are not an exciting place to be for the next 10 or 15 years." Now feel free to write the most legendary stock picker the world has ever known and tell him that 10-year predictions are worthless if you like.

In the meanwhile, you are coming back and upsetting a compromise reached between Gold and stock advocates a few months ago. The section already says that stocks are a return on value (which incorporates dividends) so you aren't adding anything.Prestonp 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether it's easier for economists to predict long-term trends. Wikipedia predicts nothing, and this isn't an article about Warren Buffett--you're welcome to add his sourced prognostications to his article, though I notice that Berkshire Hathaway is still investing in stocks and not in gold. In any event, the issue is WP:CRYSTAL, which your response complete ignores.

A compromise "between advocates" that is factually inaccurate, and fails to adhere to Wikipedia standards of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV does not override Wikipedia standards. THF 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, if represent some greater authority of Wiki knowledge, feel free to reference it. If you are, as I suspect, merely citing wiki code in an attempt to bolster your argument, it's not getting any traction with me. Oh, BTW, Berkshire Hathaway has made a good deal of money betting against the dollar, including purchasing over a million ounces of physical silver in 1997-1998. [1] [User:Prestonp|Prestonp]] 03:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, citing Wikipedia rules is relevant to how Wikipedia articles should be written. Again, please explain how the text you're repeated adding through reverts complies with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV, much less a simpler statement like WP:V. THF 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's easy. The graphic analysis of the Dow-Gold ratio suggests a current investment trend exists in the presence and is likely to keep going in the future. Just as a weatherman today suggests that the conditions are sunny today and likely to continue through the weekend or that a music singer is scheduled to preform on such and such a date. The observation of a present condition that can be analyzed and give predictive powers of the future is not predicting the future. Prestonp 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even aside from the basic truism "Past performance is not a predictor of future results", you're now admitting to a violation of WP:NOR. THF 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, no I'm not. You are providing a moving target. First it's no prediction can be made about the far future, then it's a violation of crystal ball, then it's no original research. I didn't do the research, it was done Nick Laird who runs an investment website related to Gold. If we're going to have a webpage relating to reasons for and against investing in gold, then citing one of the ideas that has captured a lot of attention on said sites and newsletters is a good idea. Now if there is some other analyst who says something opposite, then let's put his argument in here too. Prestonp 14:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's no citation to Nick Laird, so it still violates NOR. Second, Nick Laird doesn't meet WP:RS standards. Third, every other editor to look at this issue disagrees with you, and your repeated reversions contrary to talk-page consensus are tendentious. THF 14:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most important points of a third opinion is the willingness of both sides to show good faith. If you are both just going to keep arguing with each other rather than take the requested advice then there is little to no point in requesting a third opinion in the first place. Prestonp, it is important to know when to give up, and now is "when". Your addition of unsourced predictions is original research. I would like to call your attention to a phrase in the WP:CRYSTAL policy: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." (see also this section of WP:POINT). This kind of disruptive behaviour is no good for building an encyclopaedia and I would advise you to relax or take a chill pill. D4g0thur 15:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Laird runs the website Sharelynx who provided the chart which is atributed to him during attribution. The citation shows a link to a William Anton's Newsletter. Thus DEFEATING ANY NOR CLAIMS. I have also added a citation from Peter Schiff who has published a number of books and runs his own investment firm. The research is real and valid. As for these tedious Crystal claims, I can not see how looking at a on-going multiyear trend current underway IN THE PRESENT is making a prediction of the future. But if it will see if I can revise it. Prestonp 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed these references earlier because they were not inline. This changes everything; there is nothing wrong with the addition of a sourced claim. All that need be done to make this acceptable is to make the citations inline (see here for how to do so). Sorry for the misunderstanding. D4g0thur 17:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RS problem remains. Follow the links -- they're all spam sites that flunk WP:RS. THF 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not spam sites. Nick Laird runs Sharelynx which has a pay section as well as a free section. I contacted him directly and he gave me permission to use the chart. The investment newsletter was (GASP) an investment newsletter. Peter Schiff has three pages worth of books currently available from Amazon. I will order two of them from Amazon so as to add them to the citations and ensure an end to this discussion. Meanwhile, Peter Schiff's writings are also available FREE over the internet for all to read and say exactly what they are cited as saying. Prestonp 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You type a lot of words, but none of them have anything to do with how these sources comply with WP:RS. THF 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the moving target, we have moved from Crystal, to NOR, and now to Reliability. If you bother to read what I already wrote, you would see that Peter Schiff runs an investmnet firm and is a published author on the topic of gold and the dollar with many books to his credit. He is therefore a reliable resource. Towards that end, someone else posted that Henry Blodgett said somewhere that stocks are a far superior investment to Gold. If someone wants to find exactly where Blodgett said it and put together a pro v. con element to the page, I would welcome the addition. Prestonp 18:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a problem with the majority of the sources provided. As long as the statements about gold are presented as opinion rather than fact then there is no issue. D4g0thur 18:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links

The http://www.livegoldprice.info/ for the current price is a spam link. We should change it to something more credible. I suggest http://www.insidegold.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.192.154 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 July 2007

I wanted to suggest a external link for addition. http://www.coinalbum.org/page-us-historic-labor-for-gold-19.html This page shows the relationship between an average days earnings for non salaried workers in the united states and how many ounces of gold could be purchased for that amount in that year. Sources are cited at the bottom of the page (as links). Following the source tree back up results in offsite .gov or major commercial sites (kitco). ((Ever since reading adam smith I have had an interest in discovering sources to measure all commodities by labor, instead of national currencies. If somebody knows another way to get this information to readers, please suggest)). 71.189.78.8 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Prestonp 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rfc

I came across this article on a request for comment here and have read through both sides of this debate. I'm far from an investment guru and certainly don't pretend to know anything about commodities. That said, however, with all due respect, "This appreciation has been cyclical and it appears that the next 10 or more years will favor the performance of gold over stocks" does appear to be speculative in nature and does smack of NPOV as it is written. My suggestion would be starting the line with "some analysts believe" or something along those lines, to show that it is a somewhat controversial opinion. Ted, can you cite a reliable source (I do wonder about the use of Jefferson Gold & Bullion as a source) contrary to this prediction? As for WP:CRYSTAL, if the research is verifiable, I don't see an issue with it. My two cents (how much gold will that buy me?). Douglasmtaylor 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with anything you say, but that a non-notable analyst believes X isn't encyclopedic. It's not that hard to find equally non-notable analysts who disagree. There's a WP:RS problem, too. THF 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

This is a response to THF's request for a third opinion.
This is a very clear cut matter, unusually so for a request for third opinion. The phrase "it appears that the next 10 or more years will favor the performance of gold over stocks" (see this diff) is unsourced and, as such, a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation on future events (even if they are based on reliable trends as Prestonp claims). If, however, a source for the statement is provided, adding the statement is acceptable. Although, I suggest rewording it in order to make it more neutral. D4g0thur 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone here an economist? Does anyone know the nature of prices? That there could be any credibility associated with the claim that gold prices will spike over the next 10 years is very easily and simply defeated. Prices reflect the collective knowledge of the open market. A good example of this is Rupurt Murdoch's bid on Dow Jones. Once Murdoch offered $60 per share, the price of Dow Jones stock became worth $60 per share. Pretend that you and one other person knew, one week in advance of the offer, that the price would eventually be worth $60 in one week. You would offer to by Dow Jones at $50/share. The other guy, would want to force you out, and offer $55/share. Not to be outdone, you would offer $58/per share. Etc, etc. Because you both KNOW the price will rise, even if you are one penny below the inevitable price, you will stand to capitalize on an arbitrage opportunity.

What does this have to do with gold, in this case? Simple: if a bunch of guys are running around telling everyone that the price of gold WILL go up, if the claim had any objective credibility the open market would have confirmed it by reflecting this knowledge in the price. Therefore, if the price of gold was going to rise, it would have done so already. That this information is made availible for free does little to assuage fears of spam; in fact, it confirms them. By asserting that the price of gold WILL rise, if enough people believe them, the prediction will come true. But this is not by virtue of any actual long term appreciation of value. Instead, it will follow the bubble path of playing the bigger fool game until someone gets the winner's curse.

Simply put, if the claim that the price of gold was going to rise had the modicum of credibility necessary to substantiate it here, the market would have responded accordingly, and the prediction would no longer be true anyway. It's like that famous joke about economists: An economist is walking down the street, sees a hundred dollar bill on the ground, and doesn't pick it up. You know why? Because if there really were a hundred dollar bill on the ground, someone would have picked it up by now. (o_0) SJCstudent 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions, yes I am an Economist. I will be completing the intermediate courses this Fall and applying for my Masters to begin in the Spring. As for your interpretation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, I will simply quote Warren Buffett in saying that "Just because markets are sometimes efficient, does not mean that they are always efficient." These kind of long term trends are well predicted in Austrian Economics theory as set forth by Dr. Ludwig von Mises or Noble Laureate Frederick Hayek. It is also well documented in economic history in books such as Edward Chandeler's "Devil Take the Hindmost."Prestonp 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still an active need for additional comments, or has the issue been resolved by the removal of "It appears that..."? Can the RFC and third party topics be removed, dropping this article from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RFCecon_list? VisitorTalk 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the text I would like to see back into the Gold v. Stocks section. Please review it and give me your thoughts. Prestonp 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston, I'd like to see the citations put inline with the text rather than at the end of the section. In particular, "one would expect" needs to be either properly documented, or removed as original research. It might be that everything you wrote in the section is true, but the question is, did you write it in a way that demonstrates verifiable, reliable, notable sources who said it? VisitorTalk 07:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Prestonp 05:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]