Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Return of the Gold Bugs
Newsweek ^ | December 7, 2005 | Robert Samuelson

Posted on 12/07/2005 10:10:37 AM PST by DebtAndDelusion

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last
To: ArrogantBustard

Years running from 1801 to 2001. Each tick is 10 years.


41 posted on 12/07/2005 12:49:52 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (The Federal Reserve did not kill JFK. Greenspan was not on the grassy knoll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Thanks ... now that I know, I can read it. The blips in the stock market appear more or less where one would expect them to.


42 posted on 12/07/2005 1:01:17 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

twenty five years ago, 100 ounces of gold would buy you a nice 4 bedroom house.

today, 100 ounces of gold would buy you about one-fourth of that house.


43 posted on 12/07/2005 1:14:40 PM PST by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Gold is for suckers.

Now if you had gotten an ounce of Rhodium in 1801, not only would you be wealthier (~$3k/oz.), but you could have named it after yourself, as it wasn't discovered until 1803.

Rhodium is essential to the manufacture of Beebers, hence it's ability to retain value.

44 posted on 12/07/2005 2:16:14 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DebtAndDelusion
This run-up is disturbing because the ounce of gold I could buy for 460 a few months ago costs a lot more today.

And the really disturbing part is that you could have brought that ounce back in 1981 for $891.

45 posted on 12/07/2005 2:34:54 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DebtAndDelusion
This run-up is disturbing because the ounce of gold I could buy for 460 a few months ago costs a lot more today.

And the really disturbing part is that you could have brought that ounce back in 1981 for $891.

46 posted on 12/07/2005 2:34:57 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hubbubhubbub
Gold is not held for returns, it's for protecting what you have.

That probably explains why gold is worth half as much as it was worth 25 years ago.

47 posted on 12/07/2005 2:38:25 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Many other posters have already refuted your foolish nonsense. Ditto to all of them.


48 posted on 12/07/2005 2:42:45 PM PST by hubbubhubbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
Don't worry about anti-gold posters. They are simply bitter that they didn't buy in 1999. And, boy, do they hate to be reminded of the price of gold now. ;-)

If one had the foresight to time the gold market perfectly and buy at the lowest point in 1999, then they would have earned a 100% return on their investment or approximately 16.5% return, minus the high super high transaction fees and commissions. BFD. Most people can't time the market with perfection and therefore their returns are generally a lot less than the best case scenerio that the gold hucksters project. Very few gold hucksters will tell you, for example, that if you had brought gold on December 21, 1980 and sold today you would have lost nearly 45% of your investment, plus the high commissions and transaction fees.

49 posted on 12/07/2005 2:50:02 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Turning $20 in gold in 1900 into $517 in gold in 2005 only requires a 3.14% annual rate of return. I know of a few investments that have done better since 1900.

Meanwhile, the S & P 500 and the DJIA has returned an average of something like 10.3% since the inception of those indexes back in the 1920's. Yep, gold is a really great investment and hedge against inflation.

50 posted on 12/07/2005 2:55:31 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
That's easy to say in hindsight. Tell us, what will do better than gold over the next 100 years?

A well diversified portfolio of quality stocks, bonds, and treasuries, purchased over time (dollar cost averaging) through discount brokers or better yet, no-commission, low cost mutual funds. Although no one can predict with certainty whether these time tested investments will do as well over the next 100 years as they did over the last 100 years, no one can predict either whether gold will perform any better than it has over the last 100 years. I'll take my chances with proven winners, and gold is not one of them.

51 posted on 12/07/2005 3:02:01 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hubbubhubbub
Many other posters have already refuted your foolish nonsense. Ditto to all of them.

They have?

52 posted on 12/07/2005 3:23:54 PM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

You are conflating insurance against fiat collapse (and preservation of purchasing power) with 'investment vehicles.'

This really isn't a thread so much about INVESTING in gold as it is about the virtue of gold as a store of wealth. Now, I'm not jumping into this argument, but I don't like it when people escape simple points being made in a thread.

It's NOT ABOUT INVESTING (generally) with gold, it's about protecting oneself from the vagaries of fiat monetary systems.

Read what happened to Confederate bills during the war?


53 posted on 12/07/2005 3:28:05 PM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

I'll go real slow so even you can understand.

In 1900 Gold was $20/oz. Hold Specie or Paper your choice.

If you hold Gold that ounce is now worth $510.

If you hold paper that $20 is now worth $1 due to debasement.

Everything else is idle chatter.


54 posted on 12/07/2005 3:33:58 PM PST by hubbubhubbub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
You are conflating insurance against fiat collapse (and preservation of purchasing power) with 'investment vehicles.'

And we see how it preserved purchasing power since 1980.

It's NOT ABOUT INVESTING (generally) with gold, it's about protecting oneself from the vagaries of fiat monetary systems.

Great, let me know when our fiat money collapses.

55 posted on 12/07/2005 3:44:25 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (The Federal Reserve did not kill JFK. Greenspan was not on the grassy knoll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #56 Removed by Moderator

To: hubbubhubbub
In 1900 Gold was $20/oz. Hold Specie or Paper your choice. If you hold Gold that ounce is now worth $510. If you hold paper that $20 is now worth $1 due to debasement. Everything else is idle chatter.

Silly strawman. No one in his right mind would hold cash under his matress for a hundred years. When you account for the effects of inflation, that $510 return has still lost you money, because that $510, after fees, is less than the inflation-adjusted purchasing power of the original $20.

Any other investment --- stocks, bonds, real estate --- would have gained you money.

I have no problem with trading gold if you know what you're doing, although it's a bit reckless for my tastes. But holding gold is crazy -- the longer you do it, the more money you lose.

57 posted on 12/07/2005 3:57:21 PM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: quakeroats
Are you hostile to commodities investments in general,or gold in particular?

No. Gold has been a profitable trade for the last 5 years. If you bought within the last 5 years, good for you.

Gold has several shortfalls. It pays no interest and no dividend. Its trading costs may be higher than those of stocks, bonds and mutual funds, especially for small amounts.

I just have to laugh at people who think gold is the best investment in the world. I prefer investments that pay a dividend. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Your results may vary. Void where prohibited by law :^)

58 posted on 12/07/2005 4:02:40 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (The Federal Reserve did not kill JFK. Greenspan was not on the grassy knoll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Bonds.

Gold prices (and the CRB) are telling me that bond prices are about to collapse. IOW, sell bonds until you puke or puke until you sell bonds.

59 posted on 12/07/2005 4:04:48 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson