Noted.
I was just saying that you can't look at an ounce of silver that you bought in 2002 for say, $8, and say with certainty that you've gained $30 if you sold that ounce of silver this year. (I haven't gone back to look at the exact numbers there, so don't hold me to that).
The question that you have to ask yourself is, did silver actually go up? Or did the dollar go down? Silver's value probably stayed about the same (relative to the dollar's nose-dive), because they can't just decide how much or how little silver they want to print, like they can with dollars.
We know that inflation always has a lagging behavior, as dilution is not immediately realized in the economy. As Ron Paul says, those that get the new money first get to spend it before its loss of value is truly realized.
We're still waiting to see the inflation effects from the doubling of the money supply in 2008. I don't really want to see them.
But, back to the point, maybe we shouldn't think of silver/gold purchasing as a 'money making' venture, but rather, a way to 'stop the bleeding.' If you hold on to dollars, you will 'bleed to death.'
You bring up a good point about gold being used as a weight for measuring property values, goods, etc. That shows that people are wising up to the fact that gold is a more reliable measurement tool than the dollar; that they could turn around tomorrow and triple the money supply with a stroke on a Fed-Chairman's keyboard and totally screw up the measurements.
Connect With Us