We are looking at the same thing but seeing it differently.
I maintain gold supply is virtually constant which makes it valuable as a monetary asset. Otherwise, it would not retain a store of value.
Secondly, I deem that all gold is available for sale. This includes gold held by CBs. which recent events have demonstrated. Even the Fed conducted an internal study for this purpose. Like any other item, whether one sells or does not sell will be dependent on the price and whether one desires to sell at that price in view of one's reason for selling. Moreover, I believe that if the CBs did sell all their gold, after the sale was completed, gold would be induced to go up, not down, as the availability of its use as a monetary asset would be increased. When gold earlier was garnered by banks, the reduction in common use did not increase the price, it reduced it.
Thirdly, I contend that it is not supply and demand as a commodity which is the determiner of the price of gold, but rather its value as a monetary asset. This is perhaps a singular unorthodox view, but if this were not so, gold would not have an historical relationship to general price which has made it valuable as a foreshadower of general price. I believe I made mention of this in an earlier post. To explain this in detail is beyond the feasibility of this post.
Thus, I am firmly convinced that for gold to rise in price, there must be reasons for it to do so in its role as a monetary asset - and not based on jewelry use. There is far too much gold for that. But if conditions were right for gold to increase in value as a monetary asset, no amount of CB selling could stop it until that value to which it sought was obtained. Accordingly, wishing for a crisis for crisis sake (no pun intended) to cause gold to go up in price may be wishful wishing unless conditions of the crisis will cause gold to gain value relative to the dollar as a monetary asset.
Vieserre
|
