How is gold shared in worldwide economies?
Money is no longer backed by gold. It's backed by the faith and credit of the issuing government. A new country,say, will first trade goods for dollars or other currency, so its ownership of gold is irrelevant. Its currency will trade at a value based on supply/demand for that currency. If it's an unstable currency, inflating too quickly, the exchange rate will reflect that as well.  More than that your question kind of mixes a number of issues, loosely related. First is the gold question, second, the question of currency exchange rates and they are derived, with an example of a new country. Both interesting, but distinct processes. "You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem.  ""In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining."" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars.  Thus, the amount of money is not relevant-  it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price.  Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because ""that's how it's always been."" Nobody ""creates/supervises"" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values." I think you are asking a few questions here. Why is gold chosen as money? In a free market there are five characteristics of a good money: Gold and silver meet all five characteristics.  Diamonds are not easily divisible which is why they are not normally used as money.  Copper, Iron, and lead are not scarce enough - you would need a lot of these metals to make weekly or daily purchases.  Paper is also way too plentiful to be used as money. By the way, historically silver has been used for money more than gold. How does international trade work with gold as money (is this what you are asking with your hypothetical example of 10 countries each with y amount of gold?) Typically a government will issue a currency that is backed by gold.  This means you can redeem your currency for actual gold.  Then when an American spends 5 US dollars (USD) to purchase a Chinese good the Chinese man now owns 5 USDs.  The Chinese man can either redeem the 5 USD for gold or spend the 5 USD in the US.  If a government issues more currency then they have gold for then the gold will start to flow from that country to other countries as the citizens of the other countries redeem the over-issued currency for gold.  This outflow of gold restricts governments from over-issuing paper currency. Who creates the procedures and who supervises them in modern worldwide economy? The Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements all are involved in the current system where the US dollar (see Bretton Woods agreement) is the reserve currency used by central banks throughout the world.  Some think this system is coming to an end.  I tend to agree.
"There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy.  Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen.  It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify.  The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund.   For example, consider buying physical gold.  To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it.  So, it has additional costs.  Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF.  At least a portion of ""their gold"" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month.  This creates a slight inefficiency.  While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable.  And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't." You acquire something because you expect to use it, or because you expect to exchange it for something that you want to use. Gold is a good candidate for storing value because it's rare, it's not easily counterfeited, it's divisible, it's portable, etc.  Contrast this with your favorite currency:  more can be printed up almost at will, etc. Overvaluedness/undervaluedness is only in reference to something else.  How many dollars does it take to buy an ounce of gold?  (About $1,500.)  How many ounces does it take to equal the DJIA?  (About 8.)  How many ounces of silver does it take to buy an ounce of gold?  How many barrels of oil can you buy with an ounce of gold?  Etc., etc. But whatever measure you're using, the value of the gold you have is directly related to the mass of gold you own.  Two ounces are twice as valuable as one ounce. As the old joke goes (no offense to taxi drivers intended!) when your cabbie starts talking about how to get rich with gold, it's probably overvalued.  Sell it all! ;) "And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an ""Authorized Participant"". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any ""spread tax"" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (""initial margin and maintenance margin""), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor." The monetary supply isn't a fixed number like in the old days of the [gold standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard) is part of the answer. Also, the actual spending of that one thousand dollars -- where the money is spent and on what -- does make a significant difference on how the overall economy is effected: People spending it on food, transportation and housing isn't going to drive up the costs of a Porshe 911. The severity of wealth inequality- more so than its existence- is what I'm getting at when I talk about the Fed. The cantillon effect is a theory that essentially states that the first recipients of stimulus are far better off than those 2 or 3 degrees of separation later.  So if you look at Fed policies, where monetary stimulus is directed only towards the financial system and credit markets, certain parties will benefit disproportionately first before others later. In this case, that would be those employed by the industry (bankers, investors, etc), institutions in that industry (banks, hedge funds, pension/mutual funds), and owners of securities (the wealthy). Spillover effects impact the stock market, real estate, art, etc. and they are not a result of fundamentals, but rather of mis-allocated capital.  What I'm getting at is we don't need central planners (i.e. the Fed) to make decisions regarding the market for money - interest rates - or pursue dubious financial experiments at best to somehow fix problems that they themselves caused in the past (through extended low interest rate environments). Central banking could take a very serious hit if cryptocurrencies become mainstream- which I do not expect for a long time- but it's the best emergent challenger to the existing paradigm. As one can see here, the world population is growing. Assuming worldwide demand for gold is a function of population, the question you have to ask is whether gold mining outpaces population growth. Just eyeballing it, I'd say they're about even although annual production is far noisier. Keep in mind that gold extraction is not an easy process though. At the end of the day, gold is only worth what you can trade it for, just like any other store of value. "Nobody can give you a definitive answer.  To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so.  It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well.  There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable.  It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides.  In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well.  It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency.  Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account).  If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held.  Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it.  Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options.  The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader.  Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial ""race to the bottom"".  It's probably not much better than another fiat currency.  I don't know anything about Norway.  Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum).  Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil.  Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours." "The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred ""safe haven"" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a ""hedge""; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a ""hot"" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the ""jitters"" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail.  If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger.  Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's ""survivor bias""; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year."