The point is... suki cooper raises some very good questions about gold's recent poor performance. But like most vacuous journalists being spat out of uni these days... fails to investigate or answer these questions. Investigative journalism is a 2-stage process. 1st you tell the audience there's a fire 2nd is you tell them where the fire escapes are.
C) Owning an asset that produces an income stream, and thus can be valued accurately without having to resort to 'faith'. One thing any moron should have learned from this forum over the past few years is that any 'leap of faith' in investing will most likely end in tears. IMHO, the price of gold is not based on mining costs, thus (A) is mere shallow permabull rhetoric. Meanwhile, (B) is straight from the Mike Baloney course of wealth destruction 101, and, while the theory may have once held water.... the SS BTC frenzy, which included subtle pumping by some longstanding and authoritative members, put and end to any credibility this philosophy may have had in the past. I'll go with (C) thanks.
Can't help but agree with wrmcad's point of view, especially when the significant other keeps rubbing it in your face that her option C is trumping your option A by a long run!
Isn't gold up 10% in the last 12 month, unless of corse your employer pays you in US$. Is gold down or US$ is up? When US$ was week gold was up (in US$). This is the way gold works actually. Would it make any different in your local financial wellbeing if gold is 2000 USD but only the same price in AU$? WSJ is obviously unable to see things globally because they are American. For them gold is up or down in USD only. Look at gold prices globally. They must move up or down against all mayor currencies before you make such broad assumption gold is down 39%.
Lots of things are sold at a price far above the production cost. They are sold at a price the market will bear. Just look some Apple accessories. The pumpers try to convince people that the future market will bear a far higher price (appeals to the easy riches crowd) or that the gubbermant is gonna come take their guns, force everyone into homosexual marriage via affordable health care and contrail chemicals, then everthing will collapse and we'll return to some monetary paradise backed by gold (the wacky doomer crowd).
Meanwhile...gold is $1534 AUD. And it's hedged against a falling AUD. And of course, 1oz Lunar Dragons (Series 2) sell above $1775 AUD 1oz Lunar Tiger (Series 2) 2,000 AUD
Those who manipulate currency hate gold and act to make it unattractive. if currency is tied to gold they can no longer manipulate it. But they can only do this so far, then gold will propably break out. jmo. however these are very powerful people and they may eventually win, destroying gold as an alternative. Certainly they would not like to see gold greatly increasing in value against currency, and will act against it. However, I still think gold is the best bet , concidering the alternatives.
Economic manipulation is a risky game played by those who don't have our best interests in mind, who lie openly and who care for nothing but personal power over all else. They will f*ck things up eventually. The question is when and how bad it will be.
C is by far the riskiest and therefore requires the most faith. Of course that risk creates greatest potential for profit so the gamble is obviously worth it for a lot of people.
It is all faith when it comes down to it. Real Estate, gold, futures, shares, fiat. All of them are a gamble and are not predictable. In the last century we have seen massive losses and gains in all of these areas. Some things (like wars) create a certain amount of predictability (commodity prices rise, food prices increase, government debt increases) but in general most of us are left guessing. A,B and C are all susceptible. In fact things that "earn an income stream" become things that "cause you to go bankrupt" in poorly favoured conditions. Unless you have borrowed to buy them, commodities don't make you go bankrupt even if there is loss. The same can be said about money, though money is more volatile in that a currency can crash and burn. Like others have said, spreading investments over a number of different fields is probably wise. Also, watching the long term trends and reacting to them is probably wise as well.
:lol: :lol: Surely you are joking? :lol: If you assumed C) refers exclusively to stocks/shares, then that would explain a lot.
