3 ms·

And in six of those years (2013-2019) it was absolutely flat: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GOLDAMGBD228NLBM https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GOLDAMGB

And in six of those years (2013-2019) it was absolutely flat: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GOLDAMGBD228NLBM https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GOLDAMGBD228NLBM If you bought gold in 2005, you would have peaked in 2011, and not recovered until mid-2020. If you have the nerve/patience to do that, you have a stronger stomach than I. I am constantly reminded of Buffett's 2011 take: > Let’s now create a pile B costing an equal amount. For that, we could buy all U.S. cropland (400 million acres with output of about $200 billion annually), plus 16 Exxon Mobils (the world’s most profitable company, one earning more than $40 billion annually). After these purchases, we would have about $1 trillion left over for walking-around money (no sense feeling strapped after this buying binge). Can you imagine an investor with $9.6 trillion selecting pile A over pile B? > Today the world’s gold stock is about 170,000 metric tons. If all of this gold were melded together, it would form a cube of about 68 feet per side. (Picture it fitting comfortably within a baseball infield.) At $1,750 per ounce – gold’s price as I write this – its value would be $9.6 trillion. Call this cube pile A. > Beyond the staggering valuation given the existing stock of gold, current prices make today’s annual production of gold command about $160 billion. Buyers – whether jewelry and industrial users, frightened individuals, or speculators – must continually absorb this additional supply to merely maintain an equilibrium at present prices. > A century from now the 400 million acres of farmland will have produced staggering amounts of corn, wheat, cotton, and other crops – and will continue to produce that valuable bounty, whatever the currency may be. Exxon Mobil will probably have delivered trillions of dollars in dividends to its owners and will also hold assets worth many more trillions (and, remember, you get 16 Exxons). The 170,000 tons of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond. * https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf Gold has not been a very useful 'investment' over the long-term: * https://www.pwlcapital.com/will-gold-save-the-day/ https://www.pwlcapital.com/will-gold-save-the-day/ What are the expected returns of gold given that it has no earnings?

eru 6y ago
Of course, farmland might get confiscated from you. Or you might have to pay taxes on it, etc. A small amount of gold might get lost or stolen and it's usually more annoying to sell than stocks. But otherwise, you can just keep it in a sock under your pillow and be reasonably sure it's still there in a few decades.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > Of course, farmland might get confiscated from you. In what area of the world do you live in that these scenarios are actually keeping you up at night?
  - analyte123 6y ago
    See this massive list of countries where this has occurred: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country This is not even to mention the prospect of “constructive” land reform, e.g. squeezing landowners (or certain disfavored types of landowners) with policy and then increasing property or income taxes to the point where they have no choice but to sell at a loss.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      That doesn't answer my question: > In what area of the world do you live in that these scenarios are actually keeping you up at night? Canada is on that list. I live in Canada. This is not something anyone I know is losing sleep over. They may be buying gold for other reasons, but it is not for the possibility of losing their land. This HN thread is about Ray Dalio and bonds, and the sub-thread is about the S&P 500 versus gold returns, and gold returns in general. Bringing in farmland is quite the curve ball.
      - eru 6y ago
        Well, Warren Buffett brought up the farmland. I'm not invested in gold, and I mostly agree with Buffett here. I just want to point out that the argument ain't watertight. (I try to be especially critical of arguments that support positions I agree with. Have to be careful not to bullshit yourself too much.) I mostly agree with the conclusions of the Dalio piece, too. But I don't agree with all the arguments. My main takeaway was to get inspired to look into how to short US bonds.

eru 6y ago

Of course, farmland might get confiscated from you. Or you might have to pay taxes on it, etc. A small amount of gold might get lost or stolen and it's usually more annoying to sell than stocks. But otherwise, you can just keep it in a sock under your pillow and be reasonably sure it's still there in a few decades.

throw0101a 6y ago
> Of course, farmland might get confiscated from you. In what area of the world do you live in that these scenarios are actually keeping you up at night?
- analyte123 6y ago
  See this massive list of countries where this has occurred: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country This is not even to mention the prospect of “constructive” land reform, e.g. squeezing landowners (or certain disfavored types of landowners) with policy and then increasing property or income taxes to the point where they have no choice but to sell at a loss.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    That doesn't answer my question: > In what area of the world do you live in that these scenarios are actually keeping you up at night? Canada is on that list. I live in Canada. This is not something anyone I know is losing sleep over. They may be buying gold for other reasons, but it is not for the possibility of losing their land. This HN thread is about Ray Dalio and bonds, and the sub-thread is about the S&P 500 versus gold returns, and gold returns in general. Bringing in farmland is quite the curve ball.
    - eru 6y ago
      Well, Warren Buffett brought up the farmland. I'm not invested in gold, and I mostly agree with Buffett here. I just want to point out that the argument ain't watertight. (I try to be especially critical of arguments that support positions I agree with. Have to be careful not to bullshit yourself too much.) I mostly agree with the conclusions of the Dalio piece, too. But I don't agree with all the arguments. My main takeaway was to get inspired to look into how to short US bonds.