Correct me if i'm wrong Grinners, but wouldn't cash in the bank (eg, term deposit, savings account) emulate that same curve? (Note that i'm not making a judgement on the risk of cash)
I think that over the long term it would emulate the same curve, or perform even be better than it (as compensation for third party risk), until it doesn't, like Weimar Germany. Which is gold's moment in the sun. Each to their own but I wouldn't equate someone's decision to invest 25% of their assets in bullion as part of a balanced portfolio with that of gambling in Las Vegas! Doing the opposite would be a more apt comparison in my opinion!
"I think to put your faith in gold as the basis of a country's monetary system would be extremely foolish," says Dr Julius. What planet has this person been studying?
Interesting graph - gold was in the doldrums between 83 and 2003. Imagine having put money into gold for 20 years and not seeing an increase in your investment, pretty disheartening i'd think. Property also has a part to play, although it is harder to invest in for the average pundit. Grinners, out of interest do you follow this strategy?
"You can't force a government to stay on gold, so therefore gold has no credibility," says Lord Lawson Gee, that makes a lot of sense.
To this day, the is named the Pound Sterling (as in Sterling Silver). Perhaps one day it will run full circle.
Gold is an inanimate object, so psychologically subjective qualities such as "credibility" cannot be rationally ascribed to it. Lord Lawson's statement is ignorant. It would be more appropriate to say, "You can't force a government to stay on gold, so therefore government promises have no credibility." EDIT: You can easily imagine a Basil Fawlty scene here, where he's lecturing a lump of gold about how he has warned it about its credibility :lol:
I see what your saying, though I personally see gold as credible.. Being the most consistent wealth preserver the planet has ever seen
