Does anyone know WHY gold should or might be considered a "barbarous relic"?
Possible reasons: (1) The source for the article is a periodical called "The Economist." Economics deals in abstractions. People who deal in abstractions are embarrassed by the existence of actual physical things upon which worth is based, just as most political science professors appear to be embarrassed by the inconvenient exitence of actual human beings who make nonsense of their theories. Gold is a "wild" thing whose worth fluctuates depending upon the unpredictable wants and desires of human beings for it. It is therefore unstable. It is therefore "barbarous." (2) The idiot writing the article has become so accustomed to thinking of worth in terms of money that he cannot see that gold is in itself a desirable and beautiful thing. What cannot be numerically expressed, but exists as its own concrete reality is, therefore, barbarous. (3) Gold may have been the base for monetary systems at one time in the deep dark distant past, before our monetary system began to be based on whatever the hell it's based on now. It is therefore not only barbarous, but a relic.
Or there could be some other reason entirely.
The economist Keynes coined the term in the 30s. He hated the stuff, and wanted governments to have a monopoly on creating fiat money.
Yes, my American Eagles 1 oz gold coins are among my favorite possessions. They are absolutely beautiful to look at and feel great in your hand.
Even if they doubled in value I probably wouldn't sell them.