And thank buddha for BG,BG: "Pug, bless him, wrote that "There...

And thank buddha for BG,

BG: "Pug, bless him, wrote that "There is only one possible answer to the scenario presented here by SP""

And here is the scenario that I was talking about SP talking about (again):" "China is not interested in buying paper gold.

So why is China investing in this paper gold trust?""

so, one sentence at a time: 'China is not interested in buying paper gold.'


That's straight forward. I am not interested in buying pooh sandwiches, so I don't. If China is likewise NOT interested in buying paper gold, then they won't.


But then the second sentence: 'So why is China investing in this paper gold trust?'

So here is the acceptance that china HAVE bought into SPDR.

Now, you cannot possibly buy something that you are NOT interested in because there has to be a transaction. And even if your motives are devious, you are still INTERESTED.

So, when you stick the two sentences together - as SP wrote them - they don't make sense. Unless of course, you consider my scenario: 'CIC does not consider SPDR to be paper gold.'

Because then this sentence:''China is not interested in buying paper gold.' Holds true, China is NOT interested in paper gold, but they consider SPDR to be actual gold.

And then this one: 'So why is China investing in this paper gold trust?' They are doing so because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that the trust represents actual gold.

Logical: No?

Think about the logic of the sentences that SP presented. Where's Grov? He'd eat these for dinner and tell us if they made sense.



- pug