Quote from LodeRunner:
Of the stuff that isn't intro-level, conveniently ignored is the fact that the gold bugs were wrong for three decades and it took fucking jets flying into fucking buildings to halt that race to the bottom.
Let's just take this one snippet of that really bad rant.
Three decades? Oh yeah--1980. All the gold haters love to bring up 1980 and how gold has "only doubled in the last 30 years," etc.
That's skewing the data terribly, though. 1980 was a long-term secular top. It happened after a huge, decade-long parabolic move that began with gold under $35/ounce in the early 70s. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about gold's price since 1970? Oh yeah--it doesn't fit the "gold is a terrible long-term investment" thesis. We must carefully pick our starting points for such fallacies.
Since 1970, the gold bugs have been "right" for two decades (1970s and since 2000), just like the stock bulls have only been right two decades (80s and 90s). Want to "prove" how bad an investment stocks are? Show how stocks went nowhere for 25 years starting in 1929. Or compare stocks vs. gold since 2000. Two can play that game.
Trying to fall back on the macro-econ stuff is just laughable. See if the editors will add this gem to the next addition of your remedial "Spotting Bubbles with Macro-Econ Made Fun and Easy" textbook:
"At this juncture . . . the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime markets seems likely to be contained," Bernanke in prepared testimony to Congress' Joint Economic Committee, March 2007.