Gold is at 1150 an ounce

[KevinNYC]

Peak was over 1800 in 2011.

There's been a debate on gold prices on ISH for the past several years.

I hadn't looked at the prices in a while and was surprised it was so low. Switzerland just voted no to having its central bank buy more gold.

[Bless Mathews]

Ebb and flow cuz. Ebb and flow.

I remember back in 90's weed was literally the price of gold.

[DCL]

gold was always the "safe haven" when every other asset was unattractive. demand was partly driven by fear of everything else.

but ever since the stock market became hot again, people simply lost their interest in gold. gold has no dividend nor yield. if you want to see gold get pumped back up again, you'd probably need another major financial crisis. But gold probably wouldn't move up a lot again if everything was still rosy.

[Cactus-Sack]

So, op.... exactly how big is Krugman's dick? Can you fit it in with Barry O's so firmly up there already?

[KevinNYC]

So, op.... exactly how big is Krugman's dick? Can you fit it in with Barry O's so firmly up there already?

So you would be on the losing side of the debate, huh?

[Dresta]

So you would be on the losing side of the debate, huh?

Keynesians can only see the short term, the typically myopic fools that they are. Not surprising either, considering their deity didn't have much time for long-term sustainability either; all he cared about was getting his ideas taken up by politicians, which is why he deliberately made them so appealing. What we've got is a thoroughly repugnant Keynesian/monetarist hybrid that's sole purpose is to inflate the value of assets and stocks, make the rich richer, and wreck the poor, all while pretending to care about them and dishing out welfare checks that increase rather than reduce dependence.

Everyone with a brain knows that the stock and commodities markets have grown new bubbles, and that this so-called 'recovery' his been little more than a PR exercise. Pursuing the same policies that caused the crash in the first place and then accusing others of being on the wrong side of the debate - typical Krugmanite disingenuousness. When the stock market inevitably crashes back down again then the price of gold will shoot up, so that will be the time to make money. But they're going to keep propping up a failed system and pretending everything is ok as long as they can because that is what politicians do: lie and manipulate.

Besides, someone who gets all his economic views out of newspapers, really shouldn't really being in here pretending he has formed an opinion of his own, either? All your ilk do is pick the side of the debate that most appeals to your sentiments and then assert tribal loyalty to this 'team' forevermore.

Have you actually read any economists yourself? Or are all your opinions all pre-digested food for the masses? Really, anyone who hasn't read Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis is uneducated on the subject of economics. Only then can you properly put things in perspective and understand the different schools of thought and their relation to each other and put the core of mainstream economic teaching in its proper place.

You can't even do this without already having a solid philosophical grounding in epistemology and logic, as these are the tools that will in the end determine your economic approach - all the economists you read in the press are likely completely uneducated in these areas, and therefore ignorant, and poorly positioned to comment astutely on the conundrums of macroeconomics (which, viewed philosophically, is a simple human construct, not a temporal reality).

Standard consequence of over-specialisation: mass-ignorance masquerading itself as accumulated knowledge.

[Cowboy Thunder]

Keynesians can only see the short term, the typically myopic fools that they are. Not surprising either, considering their deity didn't have much time for long-term sustainability either; all he cared about was getting his ideas taken up by politicians, which is why he deliberately made them so appealing. What we've got is a thoroughly repugnant Keynesian/monetarist hybrid that's sole purpose is to inflate the value of assets and stocks, make the rich richer, and wreck the poor, all while pretending to care about them and dishing out welfare checks that increase rather than reduce dependence.

Everyone with a brain knows that the stock and commodities markets have grown new bubbles, and that this so-called 'recovery' his been little more than a PR exercise. Pursuing the same policies that caused the crash in the first place and then accusing others of being on the wrong side of the debate - typical Krugmanite disingenuousness. When the stock market inevitably crashes back down again then the price of gold will shoot up, so that will be the time to make money. But they're going to keep propping up a failed system and pretending everything is ok as long as they can because that is what politicians do: lie and manipulate.

Besides, someone who gets all his economic views out of newspapers, really shouldn't really being in here pretending he has formed an opinion of his own, either? All your ilk do is pick the side of the debate that most appeals to your sentiments and then assert tribal loyalty to this 'team' forevermore.

Have you actually read any economists yourself? Or are all your opinions all pre-digested food for the masses? Really, anyone who hasn't read Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis is uneducated on the subject of economics. Only then can you properly put things in perspective and understand the different schools of thought and their relation to each other and put the core of mainstream economic teaching in its proper place.

You can't even do this without already having a solid philosophical grounding in epistemology and logic, as these are the tools that will in the end determine your economic approach - all the economists you read in the press are likely completely uneducated in these areas, and therefore ignorant, and poorly positioned to comment astutely on the conundrums of macroeconomics (which, viewed philosophically, is a simple human construct, not a temporal reality).

Standard consequence of over-specialisation: mass-ignorance masquerading itself as accumulated knowledge.

[Charlie Sheen]

Peak was over 1800 in 2011.

There's been a debate on gold prices on ISH for the past several years.

I hadn't looked at the prices in a while and was surprised it was so low. Switzerland just voted no to having its central bank buy more gold.

Years ago I got talked into buying 1oz. Gold Eagles by some know it all...that investment is just bleeding losses and i already planned out the vacation I was going to go on with all that easy money

[DCL]

kevin, where u at?

don't be a mayweather and run away

[BlazerRed]

My thoughts exactly

[KevinNYC]

kevin, where u at?

don't be a mayweather and run away

Do you consider boxing to be what happens in the ring or what happens outside the ring? Because to continue your metaphor, in the ring gold hit a peak of $1921.50 an ounce in September 2011 and then dropped as to 1150 last week.

There's no debate to this: If for some reason, ideological or otherwise you bought gold at 1800 and held onto it you made a bad investment. Gold hit 1800 about a month before its peak, In fact, if you google Gold hits 1800, like I just did the first link you get is this one. It's an Alex Jones link with some terrible investment advice.

This leads analysts to expect that $2000-2500/oz gold or higher is easily possible by the end of the year. Continuing low interest rates from the Federal Reserve printing press as well as the recent downgrade of the U.S. credit rating both serve to further weaken the economy and dollar day by day.

Stocks were way down they day Gold hit its high. If you were a perfect hindsight investor, you could have bought gold at 1800, sold it a month and put your profits in stock index fund and caught the stock rally. The SP500 low during this time was Oct 2011, it's almost twice as high now.

Or to put it simply gold like any other commodity or stock is worth what other people are willing to pay you for it.

[joe]

I think the dollar itself is kind of like a good looking person, who is really unhealthy on the inside. You cant really tell that this person is unhealthy until you take a closer look.

I am talking about dollars because dollars and gold are linked (specifically in the stock market). Gold is a hedge against paper money. If people trust paper money, gold will be low. And the opposite also applies. Other precious metals might have the same correlation.

The dollar is basically a mirage. It is only strong because people believe it is strong. If that is able to last forever- awesome. If people never lose faith in the dollar, our economy should be in good shape for a long time to come. Gold will have no reason to rise.

The problem is the fundamentals of the dollar. It is not backed by anything. There used to be a certain amount of gold that backed every single paper dollar in existence. Today, it is simply free floating paper money. No value besides the cost of paper and human belief.

However, underneath the seemingly solid dollar are terrible fundamentals. It is printed (electronically) at an astonishing rate. Many of those dollars are simply held by foreign central banks. Many more are not even in the US, they float around the globe. This is very clever by our central bank, because it spreads out the dollar instead of concentrating them all in one place. It avoids massive, sudden inflation.

However, inflation over time cannot be denied. Simply put, the price of things today is higher compared to wages. As a percentage of wages, chicken costs more today than it did in the 1940s. There is almost nothing that does not cost more today than it did several decades ago, the opposite trend of a thriving economy.

The question is, will people ever lose faith in the dollar? Most importantly, will foreign central banks lose faith in it? Given the fundamentals, it seems guaranteed they will at some point. But when? It might not be for 30 years. This is a brand new method being used by central banks to mask inflation and keep faith in their devalued money. Maybe it will work for a long time. But I would doubt it will last forever. At a certain point, this is just paper that is backed by nothing, that we print endless amounts of. That is the disease inside of the beautiful person.

[KevinNYC]

However, inflation over time cannot be denied. Simply put, the price of things today is higher compared to wages. As a percentage of wages, chicken costs more today than it did in the 1940s. There is almost nothing that does not cost more today than it did several decades ago, the opposite trend of a thriving economy.

Can you cite actual numbers for your chicken example?

[joe]

Can you cite actual numbers for your chicken example?

I used to know where to find all of that, it has been a while since I have been into any of this. It is out there though.

[DCL]

Do you consider boxing to be what happens in the ring or what happens outside the ring? Because to continue your metaphor, in the ring gold hit a peak of $1921.50 an ounce in September 2011 and then dropped as to 1150 last week.

There's no debate to this: If for some reason, ideological or otherwise you bought gold at 1800 and held onto it you made a bad investment. Gold hit 1800 about a month before its peak, In fact, if you google Gold hits 1800, like I just did the first link you get is this one. It's an Alex Jones link with some terrible investment advice.Stocks were way down they day Gold hit its high. If you were a perfect hindsight investor, you could have bought gold at 1800, sold it a month and put your profits in stock index fund and caught the stock rally. The SP500 low during this time was Oct 2011, it's almost twice as high now.

Or to put it simply gold like any other commodity or stock is worth what other people are willing to pay you for it.

gold bugs were pointing to the potential benefits of the global printing press (not just Fed Reserve, but global) and low interest rates of the world, but the complete opposite happened and those things actually *hurt" gold because they boosted the stock market and inflated other assets like properties.

gold is like the fat girl. she doesn't get much love when everything seems okay. but when everything else slams the investor, they run back to her. but as soon as they have other options to hit again, they ditch the fat girl/gold and go back to sexier stuff.