Member Info for addicknt

Copper, sadly I missed your recommendation, but well done for getting in there. A great result!

Q, I'm not 'confusing this with taxing the rich', your posts did. You also confuse spending power with propensity to spend - they are not synonymous.

Q, I was confused by the contradiction between both posts. You are right to say interest rates and taxation are the tools used to reduce inflation, but your point about the "rich" isn't. As you know, the wealthy have a much higher propensity to save and, as such, their impact on inflation is limited. An increase of say 5 or even 10% on higher earners has only one effect and that is to reduce investment . This has been proven time after time. Higher top rates are simply used by socialist governments as a sop to their followers and are driven by the politics of envy. They are not based upon economic theory or practice.

Controlling inflation has always been painful and it's inevitable that those with the least money suffer the most. There's no avoiding this, although politicians will never admit to this fundamental truth, despite the evidence smacking everyone in the face.

QE has been an unmitigated disaster and it makes my blood boil when I hear those responsible, Mark Carney in particular, deny their part in causing the current mess. The failures of this country are too numerous to mention, but all of them stem from the ineptitude of our politicians and central bankers. We have been very badly served by all of them.

Q, you've lost me. In your post of 17:52 you said that unless you raise taxes for the rich (I don't know what your definition of rich is) interest rates will remain high. Then in your post of 20:59 you said you can't control inflation by interest rates. Erm...

As a monetarist, I agree with your comment about the money supply and it doesn't take a genius to realise that policy since 2008 has been utterly ruinous.

Incidentally, your first comment is wrong - I can think of one poster who takes that accolade hands down, and it isn't 1984.

Q, I think we may have now got your point about '84's intelligence and repetition doesn't add to the argument.

Your second point is broadly correct, your third is not.

Eloro, sensible decision in my opinion.

Tesla, no I don't, mainly because I think we'll have some answers as to which direction we're headed before June.

Tesla, why would we raise cash at 7p when we have sufficient for the next 8 months? And that headline, whilst not inaccurate, is wholly misleading.

Fort, the motions related to preemption rights.

Fort, no, a special wouldn't be required. You can appoint up to 15 new directors without one.

TI, and yet the Sedar announcement mentioned special resolutions. I guess we can expect another attempt to dis-apply pre-emption rights. The director elections are a red herring as they don't require a special.

Rcgl, not sure what you mean. I was making a general reference to the type of item which requires a special resolution.

There's a reasonably extensive list of agenda items which require special approval and it's worth having a quick look. The key feature is that they require a vote of 75% in favour to pass.

In the past the Special resolutions we've been asked to vote on have related to the dis-application of preemption rights - I can't recall anything else, although I may be mistaken. The one thing which doesn't require a Special resolution is the election of directors. So Caldwell's comment to TI seems to be a bit strange.

Thoughts?

Eloro, all of us are 'reduced to crystal ball gazing', including you.

Bozi is looking for an explanation of the situation, as are we all, and what he said makes good sense.

TI, sorry no good with links etc. I Googled Solgold takeover and scrolled down a bit.

Bozi, I agree and believe that's exactly what's happened.

I was just re-reading the AFR article which included the interview with Sangha and it's blindingly obvious he/Caldwell have had to re-think their tactics and I suspect DC is sitting on the sidelines having a good laugh at the team.

Your comment about having been asked to tick more boxes makes perfect sense. The team most certainly wouldn't have wanted to go down this route, but have been forced into it. Mind you, I'll be more than happy if it delivers the goods. At some stage something HAS to give.

Eloro, only one quibble; it's the West which is in a fight for its economic survival. It's just that some of our leaders haven't quite grasped the fact. Or rather they have, but they haven't got a scooby how to reverse the problem.

The liberal West's headlong embracing of globalization gave China the opportunity it craved and they haven't hesitated to capitalize on our rank stupidity. The business and political leaders of the period from the late '80s have a great deal to answer for. History will not judge them favourably.

Rant over.

Initially, and on the face of it, Mather's decision to get BHP and NCM involved seemed like a good idea, as it gave us much needed credibility and access to cash. However, as is always the case with having trade investors on the Register, it came with strings attached, and I'm not sure the company completely understood that.

Within a relatively short space of time we fell out with them and Mather, quite rightly, tried to rectify the problem by diluting their interest and ended up poking the wasp's nest. I've no doubt his temperament didn't help either.

Post-merger, Sangha's comments about teaching BHP a lesson also didn't help. Although I agree with his sentiment, I'm not sure it was a particularly mature approach to the situation.

The company set itself on this route to conflict and whilst the change of ownership at NCM gives us the opportunity to start afresh with Newmont, it's quite difficult to see how we can heal the wounds with BHP, particularly as our interests are not theirs.

We should heed the words of the ex-CEO of Glencore who said in that interview the other day that the strategy of the majors is to screw the junior exploration companies. Unless BHP have lost interest in us, I can't see how we can ever enjoy a friendly and constructive relationship with them...our interests are simply too far apart. The question is, are the Chinese of the of the same mind?

Obviously, a clean sale means this isn't our problem - but a jv is a different matter. This is another reason I have no interest in us going down that route.

Fort, it was another off-book deal.

Anon, I seem to recall that was early doors after his appointment (after the last AGM?) and he said he intended to work on repairing the various relationships. Obviously, he'll be starting from scratch with Newmont.