Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyLond
I wasn't trying to make an argument for gold as an investment, I was pointing out what a complete joke the US economy has been as inflation has been created to appear like real economic growth over the past century when, in fact, the 30 largest companies are worth less gold than the 30 largest companies a century ago. The only reason the American standard of living has been high has been the perpetual trade deficit and foolish decision of foreigners to exchange real goods for debt that will never be repaid.
If I wanted to make a case for gold as an investment, I'd point out it will be the default safe haven once the legions figure out the treasury market they consider a safe haven is nothing but the unsecured promises of governments and companies on the verge of insolvency with no ability or willingness to reverse their ever-expanding need for debt.
even if I just assume what you are saying is true about the 30 largest companies for the sake of argument, why are we using a stat like that to measure whether not it’s better to invest in stocks or gold? Throughout all the changes to monetary policy, including ending the gold standard, the stock market still has performed far better than gold as an investment vehicle, and this is inflation adjusted.
1920s wasn’t even close to the peak for American economy and hegemony. For sure we are no longer the undisputed top dog economically, but there is no reason for global confidence in the American economy to backslide just because of inflation, which by the way all countries are experiencing and America has managed to have relatively less inflation compared to other countries.
But getting back to why your company size comparison is wrong (assuming this is even correct), there could just be a larger pie with less top players. However I would ask where you are getting your data from because given that the total global economy is way up I find your claims are hard to believe.