Re: price-to-earnings ratios and fundamental analysis
jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com
Date: 03/27/05
- Next message: Mark Martin: "Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?."
- Previous message: George: "Re: Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs"
- In reply to: schoenfeld1_at_gmail.com: "Re: price-to-earnings ratios and fundamental analysis"
- Next in thread: schoenfeld1_at_gmail.com: "Re: price-to-earnings ratios and fundamental analysis"
- Reply: schoenfeld1_at_gmail.com: "Re: price-to-earnings ratios and fundamental analysis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:11:33 +0000 (UTC)
In sci.physics schoenfeld1@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> <-- learn how to do this.
> Gold is not about making money, it's about maintaing money's value.
Then it is a big loser in modern times.
The old adage was that an ounce of gold will buy a really good man's
suit.
This was in fact true from the time of Shakespeare up until the 1980's.
Today, a really good man's suit can easily cost 4 ounces of gold.
So much for maintaing value.
<snip remaining>
-- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply.
- Next message: Mark Martin: "Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?."
- Previous message: George: "Re: Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs"
- In reply to: schoenfeld1_at_gmail.com: "Re: price-to-earnings ratios and fundamental analysis"
- Next in thread: schoenfeld1_at_gmail.com: "Re: price-to-earnings ratios and fundamental analysis"
- Reply: schoenfeld1_at_gmail.com: "Re: price-to-earnings ratios and fundamental analysis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|