Quote from m22au:
That varies from commentator to commentator. Your comment suggests that you are stereotyping the various bears, without actually reading what they have to say.
As I have said before, the bears probably have a longer timeframe than you do. They may not be proven correct in 12 hours' time, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Just give it a year or two or five.
I will agree to disagree with you about the 'claim' about gold going to $3000 per ounce being outrageous.
However, you have not been proven correct yet. The commentator (I think it was Fleck) didn't give a timeframe for gold at $3,000 ... but for argument's sake, let's say it was 10 years. We'll see who is right then. Until then, neither of you have been proven correct.
You haven't really explained in full why gold can't reach $3000, just because it didn't do so in the 70s or 80s ... care to elaborate?
Of course it can reach $3000 everything is possible, especially with the "fat-tail" distribution of the markets. What makes it highly unlikely in my view is that the seventies experienced a huge external price shock in the face of the oil crisis. and still gold didn't break $1000. There hasn't been an external shock in the markets approaching that of the seventies. Of course the bonds made some extraordinary moves lately. But I don't think the current situation justifies the claims being made yet.
That's OK we're all competitive traders here.