Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My goodness look at the price trend for Uranium over the last month. Incroyable! Buy now.

According to your chart, gold is selling at -1 "something’s" (as the chart does not specify what the numbers on the right mean "dollars"? "cents"? "elephants"?)

So are you implying that people are giving gold away?

Or that they are paying people to take the gold away from them since it is selling at -1 "something’s"?

I have no idea what this chart means... seriously mud is clearer.

no no, this is the price trends; so a negative just means the price has dropped.

So what units are being measured on the y-axis?

I have to agree with current consensus, this chart makes little, if no, sense at all. The Axis are not labeled, I don't know what is being shown. Therefore, this chart can not be read.

The y-axis is the price movement from the starting position. When commodities are compared they are generally shown in this way, because they all start at such different positions - an ounce of gold is so differently priced to an ounce of uranium as to make a nonsense of the resulting graph. They probably could have spelled that out, but I don't know the publication, they might write for a professional audience and have assumed the reader would know the convention.

That said, a comparison between commodities only makes sense over multiple years, in which you'd expect commodities to have changed prices considerably. Over two weeks you just aren't going to see much movement in a commodity.

I think the problem is that there is no definition of the units involved.

24% increase over a month. Wonder why.

VermGho5t wrote:I think the problem is that there is no definition of the units involved.

Yes, because it's standard to show commodities prices in movements, because the base prices are so different. So the definition could be left out when the graph is prepared for an audience familiar with that convention.

It is not a problem with the graph that it was taken out of the environment and placed here, where people didn't necessarily know what it meant.


And yeah, 24% is a considerable spike. Not really sure what'd be causing it, except to note I've read a bunch of different stuff lately about nuclear power being the only viable clean energy solution. Maybe this is linked to what might come out of the Cancun meeting?

Nuclear power is being widely touted as the only viable clean option by companies which build nuclear power plants.

Wind is being touted by wind engineering companies, and wave/tide by specialists in that area.

You will not be surprised to learn that companies who build solar panels tout solar power.

This is not the time to examine these rival claims, though.

I hear rare earths are a 'buy'. Makes sense, really.

Even rarer are those extremely rare OOP very rare original and rare Predators MK I which have been painted by a short sighted babbon with a ball of tar and appear regularly on eBay.

So that's Beck's game. Get people to buy his useless gold and reinvest in uranium!