800: Not happening.
1000: Very unlikely.
I think a 0% chance of 800 Gold is a bit silly.
0% was a rounded number. If I absolutely have to put it in numbers, I will give it a 0,2%. So that's a 1:500, which seems fair to me.
In regards to 1000, I will change my "Very unlikely" to a simple "Unlikely". If the $1,180 resistance breaks, we could find ourselves much lower pretty quickly. However, the cartel has been trying to break that resistence with unprecedented force for 3-4 months now, they really gave it everything they had and couldn't do it (although they came very close at one point). So I have the feeling that they are not able to do it. Resistance just grows stronger by the week.
The whole manipulation thing is like pressing a volleyball under water. You can do it for a bit, then resistance (natural market force) just becomes more and more powerful. At some point you can't sustain the pressure anymore and the volleyball shoots up to great hights quickly.
800 gold is still almost 300% higher than it was in 2000.
Out of all your uninformed posts, I will now shine in part a light on this one:
To start with, in 2000, the cost of production was a LOT lower than today as well. This article here shows the only chart on the cost of gold mining I could find. It says the "cash cost" of mining gold has risen from approximately $130 in 2000 to $727 in 2012, the time at which the article was written (and you can be pretty sure it is even higher today):
http://www.247bull.com/rising-production-costs-put-a-1300-floor-under-the-gold-price/It also quotes the total "all-in cost" of mining as $1300 (in November 2012).
Here you got an article from zerohedge about the all-in costs of mining being between $1250 and $1300 (in 2013):
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-02/gold-tumbles-towards-marginal-production-costsWhat matters here are not the exact numbers, but the dimensions we are talking about. So when costs of production have risen, say, at least 5.5 times ($130x5.5=$715) since the year 2000, a rise in the price of gold of 3 times ($265x3=$795) should still be an under-evaluation. (Gold at $800 is not 300% higher than gold at $265, btw, but it's three
times higher.)
If you simply want to add the rise in "all-in" costs to the price of hold from the year 2000, let's take $200 (I don't have an exact number) as all-in production cost from 2000, so let's say "all-in" costs have risen about $900 since 2000. Add that to the gold price from 2000 ($265+$900=$1165) and you are almost at the prices from today, far above $800. Bottom line is, the numbers about production cost suggest a very different picture than the one you are painting here. This is not even taking into account ANY other factors than simply the price of production.
Just as a little addition to this, gold was already supressed in 2000 (but not nearly as heavily over the last couple of months, of course). Serious supression started about 20 years ago. So when you tell me with your type of arrogance "You fail to understand this game has been going on for 500 years" (post #7772 of this thread), while maybe technically correct, it's still an irrelevant and in that context stupid claim, because supression has had totally different levels and therefore a totally different magnitude of effects.
That's just one aspect of it, there would be much more to say, for example I could write about the expanding monetary base since 2000, but after a couple of minutes searching, I didn't find any useful statistics about it (anyone?), and it's not my job to make you understand better. I could also go on to write about many, many other things which would make gold at $800 not just ridiculous as an evaluation, but also extremely, extremely unlikely.
You have demonstrated again and again over your last posts that you are very uninformed about the topic of gold. You might have already bought it 20 years ago, but you certainly didn't learn a lot about it in those 20 years. After reading uninformed post over post from you about gold, I finally couldn't take it anymore, hence this post of mine... maybe somebody else can learn something from it.
Poll
