Quote:
Originally Posted by slickpoppa
All I am saying is that one person bought $x worth of gold and another person bought $x worth of diversified equities at time t1, and sold them at t2, where t1<t2 and t1 and t2 are random dates within the past 100 years, the person who bought the equities would have a much higher EV. That's a completely uncontroversial concept, and I only brought it up is because of your comparison of buying gold in 1980 to the risk of 1929. They have both had bad stretches, but one has had much much more profitable good stretches.
Of course they are two different asset classes. All I'm talking about which would have made someone more money in the past.
just a total guess, but I would think most smart people would say gold is good <20% of the time, cycle wise.
but really, the argument is kinda silly, used to gull stupid people into putting their money into mutual funds, saying that historically the stock market, etc. I mean, in 1929 the sellers were saying the same thing to the general public.
fact of the matter, for stupid people gold is much much better, because stocks can get wiped out, sometimes overnight, whereas gold, well I guess you can get physically robbed ...