Who ever said that holding on to cash was a good idea? There are other investments. Even a few that do better than gold
Who's preening now?
The Mogambo Guru answered that very point in his latest column:
*******************************************************
- To show you the absolute intellectual impoverishment of the people who are teaching our children and/or writing our newspapers, let's turn to an article sent to me by alert reader JC, entitled "Precious Metal's Elusive Value," and written by Andrew Cassel, who is a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. He quotes Jeremy Siegel, who is a professor at Wharton. Mr. Cassel quotes this, ummm, ""professor," who is so smug in his arrogance that he dismisses gold, "If you bought $100 worth of gold in 1802, Siegel says, your inflation-adjusted return would be about 30 percent. That is, you'd have a mere $130 in purchasing power after more than 200 years."
This is exactly the damned point of the stuff, you preening halfwit! Gold preserves purchasing power! Hahaha! What a buffoon! What the lackluster professor Siegel did not mention is that if you had saved a $100 in fiat cash, even as late as 1913, then your loss in buying power would have been over 96%! Hahaha! So, what do you want in your future? Depreciated and stupid fiat money, where you end up broke and bitter, or gold, where you end up where you started in terms of buying power, or (as now) ahead of the game and making big, big money on gold's rising price? Hahaha!
How about none of the above? Holding cash under your matress is as bad an idea as holding gold for a long period. That's why the Good Lord created securities. Even a standard interest bearing account would have saved you money.
Who ever said that holding on to cash was a good idea? There are other investments. Even a few that do better than gold
Who's preening now?