Gold below $1500?

Gold will dip in the near term.

In order for it to be a poor investment in the long term, all that has to happen is this:

1) All major governments of the world move away from debt-financed economies and budgets.
2) All politicians, globally, decide on austerity measures and refrain from ever kicking the ball down the court, ever again.
3) All central banks immediately and forever cease debt-financed fiat currency spending.

If these three conditions are met, gold will become a poor insurance policy.

A local gold dealer told me that gold dipps every spring into summer

Amen, Ed. I read a rather ridiculous article by Warren Buffet lately where he was writing off investment in gold as a product of fear. Says there's no point since stocks always do better over the long term.

Someone needs to ask that genius what currency his stocks are valued in, and if he's ever heard of Germany, round about 1927 or so.

If gold bottomed out at 1400 or LESS, and I was lucky enough to sell all my silver holdings at ONE time when an IF silver peaks out HIGH this year, then I would have to strongly consider putting all that money back into some gold....

Or like a friend of mine does, he could care less about pretty silver, as he buys the cheapest junk silver rounds he can find. An if he gets like fifty oz. at one time, he records that info (purchase price total)on the bag its in an tosses it to back of safe. When silver hits the highs he waits for, he sells it all. Waits a bit, buys back into silver, often the same bars or coins he just sold. Same amount, then takes the profit from it all an buys gold....

Then like he said, takes a while, a bit tedious, but that say 1 oz. gold piece he then puts in safe, PURE PROFIT. Like gold from thin air, lol. I like that system, pretty clever....

Sounds like a very enviable cost basis you've got on your Au stack! Since I'm late getting into PMs, that's a buying opportunity I can only dream of.

What definition are we using for "poor investment?" Gold has outpaced the vast majority of other investments over the past 10ish years which has made it a "good investment" in retrospect. The sole requirement for a good investment shouldn't just be price increase even if the price outpaces inflation (which, by some of the gold bugs' arguments is impossible as gold only reflects inflation by definition.

For something to be a "good" investment it should do more than just outpace inflation. It should increase in an amount which outpaces other investment vehicles that one is likely to own. Over the past 10 years, Apple has been a much better investment than gold. Over the same time period there have been investments in between the rise of gold and Apple. There have also been investments which didn't keep pace with inflation and ones which decreased in value.

I would argue that over the past 10 years, gold was a good investment, and that over the next 10 years gold will be at least an acceptable investment, but will it outpace a group of well selected stocks? It depends on how you do your homework, but for me it is only a piece of the puzzle. I'll take the appreciation of gold as a "safe" bet along with some of my other numismatic pursuits as a hobby-investment which will hopefully payoff when the time is right.

Until gold drops below $600 again, I haven't got a buying opportunity.
That won't happen soon.
I might as well sit on an acorn and wait for it to grow, to climb the tree again!

I haven't heard a peep about anything like this. It seems very contrary to mining company interests, IMO. Mining is not a cheap activity in most places. They need cash and lots of it to fund their operations. Deliberately causing their earnings to be low seems not only foolish but dangerous to their business.

What I have heard, however, is that the big bullion banks, aka The Cartel, takes large short positions in gold and silver and that if the price then dips, they can make a lot of money from that price dip. They can also go long then and sell when the price gets to a nice place for shorting. If true, they are milking this cow for all she is worth, profiting greatly on both ends of the price swings. This makes a lot more sense to me than having the miners involved in price manipulations.



I've read a lot of articles on the web that take both sides of this issue. The BIG difference between then and now is that gold coins were circulated as money back then but they are not now. Because of this, gold ownership was common then but not now. The number of Americans who own gold coins is very small as a percentage of our population. Because of this, there would not be a lot of gold out there to be stolen, er, confiscated. Also, there were exceptions to this executive order for gold jewelry, gold collectible coins, and gold used in various industries.

The gold confiscation of 1933 was primarily aimed at the banks because that was where most of the gold was located. The reason for the confiscation was that the government economists believed that the depression would not end until money was freely circulated. A lot of people were holding their gold and not spending it, so it was not circulating as they wanted it to do. Most people considered their few gold coins as money of last resort, perhaps the last thing standing between them and starvation, and held onto them as long as they could. Times were hard and they never knew when they would have more gold.

While the government could do this again, it seems unlikely in view of the small amount of gold held by citizens and the effort that the government would have to go through to gather it up. Angering voters with a small issue like this is not usually done. Anyone who doesn't have any gold coins, bars, or rounds is unlikely to care about this issue, unlike most of us on here.