Craig Spencer wrote:
snip
> No. I only included the "under certain circumstances" qualifier so
> that people would not introduce an irrelevancy by objecting that they
> couldn't redeem a 1oz coin. But then Bob did it anyway!
>
> > that makes it not-storage/ownership/non-backyness?
>
> They are storing gold. But you do not own any of it. What you own is
> a contractual obligation promising conditional redemption. [What that
> has to do with "backing" I leave to you.] e-gold still is not gold
> but a derivative.
Craig,
I respect your thinking as you are careful what you think and type.
I did see the "under certain circumstances".
My point was that virtually no e-gold user (about 99%) can meet
the stringent redemption requirements. So I don't see how it
can be a derivative. A mutual fund is a derivative for me if I
buy a single share or 1,000,000 shares. This derivative works
the same for all shareholders. The same goes for a huge bunch of
other derivatives out there. Buy one, buy a million of 'em. It
makes no difference. They work the same for everyone. e-gold
doesn't even come close.
Now there may be some "under certain circumstances" derivatives
other than these so called GBCs, but I don't know of any. Do you?
bob
---
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-gold Ltd. stores more gold on behalf of customers
than many countries? See http://www.gold.org/Gra/Gra1.htm and the
e-gold Examiner at http://www.e-gold.com/examiner.html for details.
