What is so tiresome about Sinclair's profoundly dry pronouncements is his refusal to make any case whatsoever for the 'wisdoms' he casually, grinning-guru-like, sprays around in the direction of his unthinking, unquestioning devotees and disciples. 'Mr Gold' (is he aware, do you think, of the ever-growing numbers who intone with mocking irony this wholly absurd moniker?) seems to feel it is beneath one of such standing as he occupies to address any rationale guiding his great insights. We are left to merely hear his word and blindly accept...
Typical of the 'Mr Gold Guru' style are some of the proclamations gracing his latest missive:
i) Free Gold is an interesting school of thought with which I agree on the emancipation of gold from paper gold as natural development and its implication, but not the entire thesis which runs in various directions in application of their basic and correct thesis.
ii)The not-anticipated result of the take down on paper gold was to wake a sleeping elephant of physical demand from other every corner of the globe. The opinion of the operators is that if the gold banks can keep pressure up on paper gold the huge demand for physical will fizzle.
iii)....you should not sell your physical gold or gold producers with political sensitivity, cheap cost of production, and near surface gold. Once again, if you have two cars sell one to either initiate or increase your gold and unique gold producer position. If you live in a metropolitan city, sell both.
So much crap!!
With such little time remaining, it is bordering on the criminal to sell such misinformation to such ignorant followers.
Why won't he tell us, explain to us, how it is he has arrived at these ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertions?
Why does it appear to be beyond Sinclair to cut out the pure putrid dogma and make his case? Come on!
What does he mean when (as is his custom) he states: "...but not the entire (freegold) thesis which runs in various directions in applications of their (freegolders) basic and correct thesis"? I took his (admittedly very vague and very poorly expressed) point to be that he doesn't like the outcome for mining stocks which freegold predicts.
Freegold has made the case for its prediction in the most lucid and unmistakable terms. If Sinclair opposes these views, why doesn't he show us his counter-argument? Why only bland assertions? What, other than his personal pocket, is his objection to the freegold outcome for mining companies? It may very well be that he can identify no arguments to use against the freegold forecast for mining equities. And he finds it therefore simply safer to spit out his unbacked protestations in the hope that they stick to enough of his genuflecting disciples.
I can scarcely believe Sinclair's excessively silly reading of the political and power systems operating the paper gold charade, displayed in full moronic glory in his stunningly naive claims:
"The not-anticipated result of the take down on paper gold was to wake a sleeping elephant of physical demand from other every corner of the globe. The opinion of the operators is that if the gold banks can keep pressure up on paper gold the huge demand for physical will fizzle."
Is he being serious? This was a 'not-anticipated result' was it? (It may have been unanticipated by Sinclair, but not by me and freegolders!!.. See previous posts alluding to PMPete v St. Clair). The nonsense continues..."wake a sleeping elephant of physical demand" (has he been watching the same Gold markets we have been watching? Apparently not!). The blah blah bullshit reaches its ignorant crescendo with the thoroughly absurd statement that what those running the game have been doing (with their paper gold shenanigans) is engineering a disinterest in, an abandonment of huge demand for Gold Bullion. Oh yeah.....sure!!
Is anyone who knows anything at all about Gold still unaware of the beautifully engineered smooth passage of Bullion from West to East?! Let me enlighten you: that movement is not the consequence of fortuitous, random, snap up a quick unexpected bargain-priced few hundred tonnes of Gold Bullion. That movement has been meticulously orchestrated by the only ones who can access that Gold Bullion and want such movement to take place.
Sinclair then yet again advises his devotees that: "...you should not sell your gold producers with political sensitivity, cheap cost of production, and near surface gold."
Oh, really? Why not? What guarantees can he make us that the unfolding of the freegold paradigm shift/transitional phase will not be to render all mining stocks largely valueless to private investors, as governments step in to take control "in the interests of the greater national good".... All the more attractive to the political powers might be those particularly juicy mines with Sinclair's "cheap cost of production, and near surface gold." Just maybe!
It would be nice to hear Sinclair state any of the reasons guiding his currently bland and unsubstantiated pronouncements. I understand, of course, though why he doesn't!!