Is gold subject to inflation? [duplicate]
"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (""In 2010 GBP"" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation" Gold isn't constant in value. If you look at the high price of $800 in January of 1980 and the low of $291 in 2001, you lost a lot of purchasing power, especially since money in 2001 was worth less than in 1980. People claim gold is a stable store of value but it isn't. Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating. No.  If you have to ignore a price spike, obviously its value is not constant.  Gold is a commodity, just like every other commodity.
Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there. "Nothing necessarily has to ""benefit."" Right now, what primarily drives demand for gold is its perceived use as a hedge against the inflation of fiat currency. I.e. when inflation strikes, the price of gold goes up rapidly. Thus, for a given currency, gold decreasing in price is almost always a signal that the currency is increasing in value. However, it may be that at some point in time people everywhere just decide that gold is no longer worth using as an inflation hedge, and thus the price collapses simply because demand collapsed. No corresponding ""benefit""." "You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to ""closed as duplicate of..."" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random." Your question is a moving target. And my answer will be subject to revision. I disagree with the votes to close, as you are asking (imho) what role commodities and specifically oil, play in one's asset allocation. Right? How much may be opinion, but there's a place to ask if.  I'm looking at this chart, and thinking, long term, the real return is zero. The discussion regarding gold has been pretty exhausted. For oil, it's not tough to make the case that it will fluctuate, but long term, there's no compelling reason to believe its price will rise any faster than inflation over the really long term. That's a very interesting article, and something that I hadn't considered, but I have a hard time believing that the value of the dollar is really 1/4 of what it was just 15 years ago. Ounces of gold don't appreciate in ounces of gold, and you can't buy anything with them. Like it or now, gold isn't used as a currency, so its price at this time is primarily dictated by how much more that people expect its value to rise in USD. The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation. Correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will), but in an economy where most consumers have more debt than savings, I fail to see how moderate inflation is a bad thing. Higher wages negate higher prices, and lower debt burdens free consumer demand.   Why are there always people in freak out mode if it looks like inflation may occur even slightly? Despite my previous claim to not respond to crank messages, no, you are also spectacularly ignorant of the basics about how inflation is calculated.  The Department of Labor Statistics has an army of people going into retail each month to evaluate comparables.  Heads of lettuce, gallons of milk and twinkies are not, in fact, 4x smaller than they were in 2007 and even if they were, DLS corrects for it.