4 ms·
The only difference is, that you have to actively engage in order to keep Exxon running and the farmlands productive. Plus think of all the lobbyists you have t
by stfu 14y ago
The only difference is, that you have to actively engage in order to keep Exxon running and the farmlands productive. Plus think of all the lobbyists you have to hire to keep the government away from taking your farming subsidies and oil rights.
With the gold, you just dig a hole, put it in the ground and you know that when there is a time you need it, it will most likely be of the same value than when you put it there in the first place. It is about how much capital you have, your personal views on global economic stability, and how actively you are willing to work that capital.
- notahacker 14y agoSure, investing in running farms takes more day to day work, and the probability of seeing your entire non-diversified portfolio wiped out might be somewhat higher. But gold prices are far from stable: they're at least as volatile as the stock market albeit tending to move in the opposite direction. They can be hugely affected by changes in legislation which affect the perceived risk or return to actual investments, not to mention exchange and convertibility restrictions or the vague possibility of returning to some sort of gold standard, so anyone holding a vast fortune in gold can't really afford not to have lobbyists and PR campaigns (an interesting corollary is that as the real purchasing power of a gold portfolios rises when the economy as a whole stutters, "gold bugs" generally don't have a vested interest in economic stability...)