3 ms·

I'd rather have invested that $35 into the stock market. Going by the dow jones from 1933 to today, that $35 would be worth over $9,000. That's the proper com

by craigyk 14y ago

I'd rather have invested that $35 into the stock market. Going by the dow jones from 1933 to today, that $35 would be worth over $9,000. That's the proper comparison to gold.

jbooth 14y ago
Heck, CPI inflation gets you from $35 to $600.
bitcartel 14y ago
The Dow Jones index changes over time, so to track the index properly you have to buy and sell stocks all the time, just like index tracking funds do. As a passive investment locked in a box, you would have had to purchase $35 worth of stock in 1933 and kept the stock certificate(s). Maybe there was a mutual fund around at the time that tracked the Dow Jones. Opening the box today, most of those companies (or funds) probably don't exist anymore, so you wouldn't actually be able to sell your stocks for cash.
- jbooth 14y ago
  When you start adding conditions for what "counts" and "doesn't count", you're probably not being impartial. $35 turns into $600 from 1933-now, just from inflation. Invested in gold, it gets double that, and in stocks, it gets 15X that. Those are the statistics on the matter.
  - bitcartel 14y ago
    If you put 35 dollar bills in a box in 1933 and open it up today in 2013, you still only have 35 dollar bills, physically in your hand. You can look at the purchasing power of $35 in 1933 vs 2013, but you don't have $600 physically in your hands to spend. If anything, the purchasing power shows that paper bills have lost value whereas gold has gained value. In 1933, $35 could buy you 1 ounce of gold, whereas today's equivalent of $600 only buys you ~1/3 ounce. My original post specifically talked about locking $35 in a box, so conditions haven't changed. Also I'm not claiming that gold is the best investment over time.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Try plotting against food, housing, oil.

3 ms·

I'd rather have invested that $35 into the stock market. Going by the dow jones from 1933 to today, that $35 would be worth over $9,000. That's the proper com

by craigyk 14y ago

I'd rather have invested that $35 into the stock market. Going by the dow jones from 1933 to today, that $35 would be worth over $9,000. That's the proper comparison to gold.

jbooth 14y ago
Heck, CPI inflation gets you from $35 to $600.
bitcartel 14y ago
The Dow Jones index changes over time, so to track the index properly you have to buy and sell stocks all the time, just like index tracking funds do. As a passive investment locked in a box, you would have had to purchase $35 worth of stock in 1933 and kept the stock certificate(s). Maybe there was a mutual fund around at the time that tracked the Dow Jones. Opening the box today, most of those companies (or funds) probably don't exist anymore, so you wouldn't actually be able to sell your stocks for cash.
- jbooth 14y ago
  When you start adding conditions for what "counts" and "doesn't count", you're probably not being impartial. $35 turns into $600 from 1933-now, just from inflation. Invested in gold, it gets double that, and in stocks, it gets 15X that. Those are the statistics on the matter.
  - bitcartel 14y ago
    If you put 35 dollar bills in a box in 1933 and open it up today in 2013, you still only have 35 dollar bills, physically in your hand. You can look at the purchasing power of $35 in 1933 vs 2013, but you don't have $600 physically in your hands to spend. If anything, the purchasing power shows that paper bills have lost value whereas gold has gained value. In 1933, $35 could buy you 1 ounce of gold, whereas today's equivalent of $600 only buys you ~1/3 ounce. My original post specifically talked about locking $35 in a box, so conditions haven't changed. Also I'm not claiming that gold is the best investment over time.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Try plotting against food, housing, oil.