Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (14231)	10/28/2004 7:18:19 PM
From: TH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Yiwu, This is not exact, but here is another way to think about the relative value of gold. In 1959 $1000 dollars would have bought you about 28 ounces of gold or 28 well made men's suits. That $1000 of gold purchased in 1959 at todays 2004 value would buy you about 28 well made men's suits (suits at 425 each). In 45 years a suit may cost $5000, and I expect that an ounce of gold would be in the same range. I do not think of gold as an investment. Gold is a store of wealth. Gold prevents those who print money from stealing from you. Those who print money hate gold, but they respect and fear it. Good Trading TH

To: RealMuLan who wrote (14231)	10/28/2004 7:24:27 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

I was a lousy stock picker in '59 <g>. Given the averages though I'd have done better in the stock market, perhaps twice as well after tax. The good ol' time with gold I guess means the couple thousand years that preceded the very recent fiat currency experiment -- you're right, that was a fun time but not as fun as knowing there's a possibility I could be making a million dollars a year when I'm 65. Way more if my job isn't exported by then. I frankly would be surprised if gold was 12x today's price in 45 years. I don't believe it can be held down so long <g>