It’s very easy to claim great timing with 20/20 hindsight. :dubious:
I’m going to take Susanann at his/her word about the timing of the investments. 
It sounds like you are calling me a “trader”, or “all knowing”, neither of which applies.
I sell gold exactly “1” time in my entire life, buy it just twice, and you make an implication of “timing the markets”. I “exited the gold market” exactly, and ONLY, once in my life.
I also only made “2” major decisions, in my entire life, to buy - 1971 and 2001. In 1971, any grade school kid could have told you what would happen to the value of the dollar and gold after Nixon took us off the gold standard. I didnt have to be smart to buy gold in 1971, just not be a moron. Other than coin collecting, I really didnt see any need to buy, or to seek safety in gold in the 1950’s and the 1960’s. Ike did well in the 1950’s, and our economy did well in the 1960’s. There was no “need” to buy gold in the 1950’s.
Yeah, the one decision to buy gold in 2000/2001 or so (for $300 an ounce) may have been intuition, a good guess, or I dont remember, but I know I didnt like free trade, I didnt like NAFTA, I didnt like trading with communist china, I didnt like gas costing over $1 a gallon, I didnt like moving our factories to asia, I didnt vote for bush, I was scared he would get us into a war, and I knew he was not a conservative. I thought things would get bad with bush, but I didnt really guess that bush would be even worse than I thought. Regardless, by the time bush invaded Iraq, everyone should have had a pretty good idea that things were going downhill for America. Besides, lots of people besides me bought gold around 2000, in 1999, because of Y2k. I was not alone in buying gold at the timeframe bush was getting elected.
The current time is as scary, or scarier, as back when Carter was president. This is not a time to hold paper.
No, but you have timed the market, albeit broadly.
When in the last 60 years has the US government defaulted on its debt?
To take it a step further- when since 1791 has the USA defaulted? And, if the dollar fails, the sitrep will likely be so bad that guns, ammo and canned goods will be the currency of choice. Instead of gold it should be Smith & Wesson and Pork& Beans.
Antibiotics & Viagra.
Back to the OP, one possibility would be insured municipal bonds, carefully chosen. Federal tax free, (except AMT) and reasonably safe. Works for Mrs Heinz-Kerry. I’d go with diversification and a financial planner myself, though.
-
I sold gold exactly “1” time in my entire life. You can not even “trend” that.
-
Do you mean:???
“Default through inflation”
straightstocks.com - This website is for sale! - straightstocks Resources and Information.
How clever you are to give a **start date **of 1791, instead of 1775.
Obviously, you dont want anyone to find out about Continental Currency.
What is your end date? the day before the United States declares bankruptcy?
Thanks for supporting the need for a strong central government.
Originally Posted by DrDeth
To take it a step further- when since 1791 has the USA defaulted
Nope! That has nothing to do with it. It was GOLD!
The United States did not default on its currency for most of its history because our money was backed by gold!
The United States currency was backed by GOLD from 1791 until 1971. It was the backing of US dollars by gold that prevented any default until current times.
After the gold standard was dropped in 1971, the Federal Reserve is now able to print trillions and trillions of paper dollars that are backed by nothing.
Today’s Federal Reserve notes, are the same as our old Continental Currency - not backed by gold and destined to become worthless.
I picked 1791 as that was the first date the USA had a debt:
“Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791.”
There actually was no United States of America as such until 1788.
However, Altho Continental currency did depreciate very badly for years, Congress never actually defaulted on it’s currency.
We’ve had multiple threads debating the gold standard, but to repeat just a few points:
-
From the beginning, the gold standard was theoretical, in that there was no way that every note issued could ever have all been redeemed for gold at the same time.
-
For all the years that Civil War era Greenbacks circulated, they weren’t redeemable for gold. People actually complained when they were withdrawn from circulation.
-
After 1933, the USA was on a pseudo-gold standard in that it mandated by fiat that an ounce of gold was worth thirty-five US Federal Reserve dollars, and enforced that price by making private possession of bullion illegal.
In short, until 1971 we maintained the myth that our dollars were backed up by gold. Afterwards we simply didn’t bother.
Originally Posted by Susanann
Nope! That has nothing to do with it. It was GOLD!
The United States did not default on its currency for most of its history because our money was backed by gold!
The United States currency was backed by GOLD from 1791 until 1971. It was the backing of US dollars by gold that prevented any default until current times.
After the gold standard was dropped in 1971, the Federal Reserve is now able to print trillions and trillions of paper dollars that are backed by nothing.
Today’s Federal Reserve notes, are the same as our old Continental Currency - not backed by gold and destined to become worthless.
Frankly, I really wish I could still go to any bank in America today, give the teller a $20 bill and get back in exchange a 1 ounce gold Double Eagle like we used to do for nearly 150 years.
Apparently gold DID!!! matter, because the United States stayed on the gold standard for 180 years until 1971, during which time the United States became the wealthiest country on earth, as well as the highest wages, the most jobs, and the best manufactured products in the world. It was no accident nor coincidence that the Founding Fathers put us on the gold standard, nor that we prospered for 180 years while on the gold standard.
Secondly, in the 180 years that the United States was on the gold standard, the TOTAL accumulated federal debt of the United States federal government never was more than 400 billion, the dollar was strong, and the United States had a balance of trade surplus.
Being on the gold standard from 1791 until 1971 seemed to work out pretty darn good.
Everything, prosperity, preservation of wealth, security, etc. always comes back to** gold. **
I think you’re reversing cause and effect. While the US was the richest nation in the world it could afford to support the gold standard. After the quarter-century post-war era of supremacy ended we simply couldn’t do it anymore. Britain went through the same thing only decades earlier; they tried to keep the mighty Pound from devaluating and the day came when Britain simply wasn’t rich enough anymore to do so.
That is not how the American gold standard worked, at least not after the Great Depression - and believe me, I’m a bit k nowledgeable about the gold standard, I’ve written an academic dissertation on it. The way the gold standard worked after the devaluation of the dollar in 1933, when the gold parity of the dollar was changed from $20.67 an ounce to $35 an ounce, was that there was a theoretical parity linking dollar to gold; the right of redeeming banknotes for physical gold was there in theory, but in practice it was heavily limited and restricted. Domestically, holding gold for monetary purposes was subject to quantitative limits for U.S. residents after 1933; internationally, the American government exerted pressure on foreign governments and central banks not to redeem their dollars in more or less institutionalised regimesw such as the London Gold Pool. Where godl was actually handed out in exchange for banknotes, it was often in the form of large bullion for which you’d need plenty of dollars, to discourage people from redeeming petty sums such as your $20 bill.
You pretend to know a lot about pre-1971 American monetary history, but you don’t. It wasn’t simply a matter of walking into “any bank in America” and get gold for cash o the spot.
Originally Posted by Susanann
Frankly, I really wish I could still go to any bank in America today, give the teller a $20 bill and get back in exchange a 1 ounce gold Double Eagle like we used to do for nearly 150 years.
Oh, puleeeeeze!
It is hard, for me, or anyone else, to believe you when you say that you wrote an academic dissertation about anything, since:
(1) you dont read very well,
(2)you dont comprehend what is written,
(3)you dont understand what could even possible logically, physically, or legally,
(4)you are unaware of the exchange rate of gold in the United States.
Obviously, if I went to the bank and gave them a $20 bill and they gave me a 1 ounce gold double eagle, then it HAD!!! to be before 1933!!!
The exchange rate of gold changed after 1933 , and secondly, after 1933 the banks did not exchange gold for paper since it became illegal for such transactions to occur at a bank.
It also had to be AFTER 1849, since double eagles did not even exist until 1849. Therefore, even a grade school child would have sense enough to know that a $20 gold double eagle could have been exchangeable for a $20 bill, **ONLY!!! **from 1849 thru 1932.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
…and yes, virtually any bank teller at virtually any bank would exchange gold or silver for paper money, on demand. I also got lots of silver all the way thru 1964 and got a ton(well, maybe not quite a ton) of silver dollars in exchange for my paper money back then.
Let’s recap:
-
Susanann refuses to answer any direct, factual questions. For example I asked her to pick any 30 year window of her choosing, in the recorded history of the American stock market and compare the performance of gold throughout that 30 year window to the performance of the stock market at large. (Quick little hint: the DJIA and the S&P 500 are not the stock market, they are stock market indexes. That is a supremely important distinction.)
-
I made a post which I felt clearly gave some good arguments for not holding gold. It also called in to question her claims that gold is the only true safe investment because it will never be worthless. I pointed out that gold has in the past been worthless. In response, she acts incredulous and says nothing of substance in response to this statement of fact.
This is actually an important point. I never claimed anywhere that in my lifetime or the lifetime of anyone on this forum that gold has been worthless generally. However, gold has certainly been worthless locally during that time (in situations in which people were stranded without basic life necessities.)
What I’m getting at is this, and if Susanann doesn’t get this or acknowledge it then it shows she’s not interested in a real discussion and is beyond any hope of reason. In a theoretical “apocalypse” situation, in which humans are fighting for scraps of food, or even engaging in cannibalism to survive, gold will be of less value than a grain of rice or a handful of beans. It will essentially be worthless. For an answer to the trivia question as to “when was gold worthless?” Well, pre-agriculture, essentially. The earliest gold jewelry dates to something like 6,000 or so years ago. Obviously even pre-historic hunter gatherers valued trinkets and minor religious artifacts, but by and large they would have valued simple food and things to make tools with immensely more than gold if a theoretical time traveler went back in time and tried to barter with them.
Gold would of course be variably worth something back then. Mostly during times of plenty, but any tribe struggling or getting ready for the winter wouldn’t trade any amount of food for a worthless, shiny rock that they don’t understand or comprehend as anything other than a hunk of uniquely colored earth.
However, look at how ridiculous this is. I’m talking about the post-apocalypse and pre-agricultural history. Are such things unlikely to happen in our lifetimes? Yep. However, if you’re hoarding gold because you’re shaking in your boots about the stability of the world’s reserve currency, then you’re guarding against basically something that is about as likely to happen as nuclear apocalypse wiping out 90% of the world’s population and returning us to the stone ages.
Is it possible the U.S. dollar stops being the world’s reserve currency? Yup. Is it possible it loses some value? Yup. At the end of the day though, it certainly has no chance of becoming worthless in the lifetimes of anyone on these boards. And buying gold as a hedge on the dollar becoming worthless is mindless and stupid. Holders of the British pound didn’t become indigent when the British Empire stopped being the world’s financial superpower.
I also should add a quick note, that gold is not intrinsically special. Gold is a commodity, and also a traditional store of value. Real wealth is production of goods and services, real wealth are the commodities that actually contribute to keeping society alive and functioning.
In ancient societies real wealth was basic food stuffs, the stuff needed to create clothes and the materials needed to create shelter, and the labor required for the creation and production of those things. Gold became popular around the time we entered into settlements because it was rare and malleable, didn’t rust and was moderately easily verified. In a time when you couldn’t have really created a counterfeit proof currency, it made sense to just make your currency out of various types of metals that were rare and that people agreed were of a certain value. However, when the pharaohs had their great monuments built it wasn’t because of how much gold they had that those monuments got built. It was because of the vast resources of agricultural commodities, labor, and other basic societal commodities that the gold represented. Gold in and of itself meant nothing. Gold could be exchanged for food, for building materials, and for clothes. It was a store of value. Its only intrinsic value was its value in creating works of art, and in more modern times its applications in industrial uses.
If you really want to keep naming names, then we can safely say that Martin Hyde does not understand the OP question of: where is it safer than a savings account to store a billion dollars if you dont care about growing the money?…today, in this world, in today’s economy near collapse, with todays federal debt, with the US dollar near collapse, with todays euro in trouble, with unemployment the highest its been since the Great Depression, with multiple trillions of dollars in annual federal budget deficits and huge deficits in our balance of trade.
Besides not understanding the question, and besides not answering the question, Martin Hyde does not understand the simplest answers already given.
Martin Hyde does not even understand what he himself is saying.
I think we could fill the navel of a flea with what Martin Hyde understands, and STILL have room for a Hummer!!
Individual banks have been known to collapse, leaving their largest investors with only the nationally guaranteed amount. Cf Barings and (I think) Lloyds.