Jim, JP: Thanks for the replies, which I learned a lot from. I'm not sure they answered my fundamental question, though, which I think is really my fault, since I didn't state it clearly. Let me try again:
What I was originally assuming is that (a) a rise or fall in the price of gold generally reflects a rise or fall in demand for gold and (b) a rise or fall in the circulation of e-gold generally reflects a rise or fall in demand for e-gold and (c) comparing the price of gold to the circulation of e-gold is therefore a legitimate way to compare (not to correlate, not to link, but simply to compare) the demand for gold to the demand for e-gold. And all I want to know at this point is: Is there something wrong with that syllogism? As I understand it, Jim, you think there is. At least that's how I read your statement that "the price of gold has NOTHING to do with how many grams of e-gold are in circulation." But maybe I'm overreading? Clearly, I muddied the question with side issues, and particularly by repeating my wisecrack that (a), (b), and (c) "prove" e-gold is not the same thing as "gold itself." That really was just my droll way of saying "I'm capable of drawing a ludicrously obvious conclusion from the divergent behavior of e-gold and gold -- how about you people tell me something I don't already know?" I didn't intend to get into an argument about the ontology of gold, though I certainly found you all's remarks on the subject both interesting and illuminating. So, hopefully we've just been misunderstanding each other here. Either that, or I am deeply in need of a clue. Julian --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you know that e-metal is a wonderful holiday gift? Avoid the hassle this year!
