more attacks on Social Security
Gold is the most stable metric.
Eh? In the last 10 years gold has been one of the most volatile. Just about anything has gone down in value massively compared to gold. So all other goods, stocks, bonds, and currencies have halved in value when measured in gold but it's gold that is stable...? Gold has been going down in value for a while now, or would you say that everything else is going up in value for no reason compared to gold?
And don't forget that other investments can actually yield dividends, with gold there is no yield at all unless someone will overpay you even more for your gold.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
Eh? In the last 10 years gold has been one of the most volatile. Just about anything has gone down in value massively compared to gold. So all other goods, stocks, bonds, and currencies have halved in value when measured in gold but it's gold that is stable...? Gold has been going down in value for a while now, or would you say that everything else is going up in value for no reason compared to gold?
And don't forget that other investments can actually yield dividends, with gold there is no yield at all unless someone will overpay you even more for your gold.
The one thing you can say about the price of gold is that it can reflect a certain lack of confidence in US Treasury bonds among a set of fringe investors... It also reflects the level of fear of inflation.
Those two factors have driven the price way up over the last 15 years.
However, in spite of the GOP's best efforts to undermine confidence in US credit, US bonds are still seen as 'better than gold' by most of the world, and not only has inflation NOT happened, deflation is dragging Europe's economy down right now...
That's why gold has been relatively stagnant for the last 4 years... bouncing between $1000.00 and $1400.00/oz.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
Gold is the most stable metric.
Eh? In the last 10 years gold has been one of the most volatile. Just about anything has gone down in value massively compared to gold. So all other goods, stocks, bonds, and currencies have halved in value when measured in gold but it's gold that is stable...?
You have to account for the fact that the price system lags due to inertia. Gold is by far the most stable factor of the equation.
The price system also fluctuates in search of equilibrium.
This is somewhat true, but gold can play a lot of roles depending on the monetary circumstances.
The price system also fluctuates in search of equilibrium.
It's the gold that fluctuates. For the last 10 years prices have been fairly stable in euros, but once you start measuring them in gold or silver they fluctuate extremely. You don't seriously believe that bread and milk and eggs and the euro and bonds have all somehow lost 2/3 of their value compared to gold, and then say GOLD is the stable one? If you went to the store to pay with gold you'd have no idea what you'll be paying for groceries. Gold has already lost nearly 1/3 of value since the high point in 2010 or so. And before the crisis things would have been worse: your gold was worth nearly $1300 per ounce in 2011, but if you were also paying your groceries in gold in 2004 the value was only $200. Image changing all your money for gold in 2011, you'll be extremely vulnerable for changes in the price of gold. Since you want a currency that is stable compared to the stuff you actually buy, gold is one of the worst you could pick. For the average person gold is really only good as a hedge.
That's why gold has been relatively stagnant for the last 4 years... bouncing between $1000.00 and $1400.00/oz.
Do you mean the debt ceiling and government shutdown stuff? I thought that was one of the most stupid things ever. Telling the people who are funding a large part of what you do that you are not going to pay them is incredibly stupid. Politicians should treasure the fact they can borrow at 2% or whatever. I saw yesterday that Greece was at 7.8%.
Sure you would. Less and less, according to the trend.
Not really. The long-term trend clearly shows that you are better of by using gold as money, and this is especially true during periods of confiscatory monetary policies.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas
the people who support the pre-ACA status quo basically are saying "sink or swim- you're only worthy of life itself if you can make yourself and other people lots of money." money is their sole criteria of human worth, their one benchmark for acceptance among the living. the visible plight of financially struggling people is supposed to be a negative reinforcement to make sure other people keep their nose to the almighty grindstone. at least that is how it was explained to me by a sociologist. in any case it [sink or swim mentality] is a lousy and [ultimately] immoral social Darwinist meme that American capitalism has been keeping on life support for ages now.
anks
How about six years or Our Elected King Barak Obama? Have things improved all that much? We have yet to see the financial results of Obama Care which has all the worst features of corporate crony insurance and government incompetence. Wait and see how that works out.
And the games that banks play still go on. Six years on, what has Lord King Obama accomplished?
ruveyn
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas
(clicky) a list of #43's real accomplishments, per request. of course I don't expect you to actually read it.
His biggest accomplishment, IMO, is ending what GI's call the Sandbox Wars. Iraq and Afghanistan. When Obama came to power, the generals were pushing increased commitment to the Sandbox, hoping to get Obama to go along. He faced them down and said no, we never should have really been there this long, it's time for the boys to come home. And he won.
OTOH, he let Pelosi write Obamacare, and he really shouldn't have. If he would have simply based Obamacare on Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit) which skips the horrible "exchange" idea in favor of the end user directly picking a plan, we would all have been better off. Instead we have a mishmash program that is encouraging employers to eliminate jobs so they won't have to provide health care.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas
he is fortunate not to have had to face the same kinds of sociopaths that JFK did [and who I believe had a hand in killing him because he would not play along with their WW3 plans].
of course medicare pard D would have been far superior, one is continually reminded by GOP intransigence, that [in the words of Bismarck] "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.” it is the best that our hopelessly sclerotic system can do.
The Tom Cobern (OK) politician is already ramping up an offensive to deal with what he refers to as wide spread fraud in the SSDI system. There is no proof that there is any wide spread fraud. There are just cases of envious citizen trouble maker who think they are qualified to be Dr.s or Psychiatrists making judgements about people who they know to be on SSDI but feel they should not be on SSDI based on their own unqualified observations.
I think if some citizen believes that my mental impairments are not real and that I should be working instead of collecting SSDI, then maybe that citizen should be required to work within 10 feet of me if I have to go back to work, and see how quickly Mr/Mrs citizen is complaining about my behavior and trying to get me fired.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas
that is what happens in a country where the working majority [most of the time] of voting people are motivated by the fool's golden rule ["I've got mine, so screw you!"].
Sure you would. Less and less, according to the trend.
Not really. The long-term trend clearly shows that you are better of by using gold as money, and this is especially true during periods of confiscatory monetary policies.
You do realise that if people had gone to paying with gold from 1995-2010, they would have had massive deflation? It would have ruined their economy. Especially with the crisis, since debts are a major problem when there is deflation.
And this graph doesn't go to 2014, gold has gone down a lot since 2011. My parents bought gold in the 70s or 80s and it went down right after, so it took them 30 years to get their value back... and they didn't get any interest of course.
This deflationary consequence you are referring to is largely a by-product of an inflationary monetary system, and some would even say that passing the buck by means of inflation is irresponsible behaviour, if not outright immoral. Most people would also agree that falling prices leading to an increase in real wages and the standard of living is a good thing.
The graph goes to 2014.
Gold doesn't go up and down as such. The dollar is getting cheaper because they are making more of it.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
social security and medicare thread |
31 Dec 2023, 9:41 pm |
Panic attacks |
07 Jan 2024, 1:40 pm |
Intermittent autism “attacks?” |
13 Mar 2024, 7:04 pm |
House Intelligence Chairman - National Security threat |
14 Feb 2024, 4:18 pm |