Does gold's value decrease over time due to the fact that it is being continuously mined?
"does it mean uncontrolled severe deflation/inflation is more likely to   occur compared to ""normal"" currencies such as USD, EUR etc? Look at the chart referenced in the link in your question.  It took approximately 50 years for annual production of gold to double from 500 tons to 1000 tons.  It took approximately 40 years for annual production to double from 1000 tons to 2000 tons. Compare that to the production of US dollars by the Federal Reserve (see chart below obtained from here).  US dollar production doubled in DAYS.  Which one do you think will lead to uncontrolled inflation/deflation? Update: Why did I include a chart of the FED's balance sheet?  Because this is the way newly printed money is introduced - the FED will purchase something from banks (mortgage-backed securities, US treasuries, etc.) with newly printed money.  The banks can then loan this money to people who then deposit the money into other banks who loan those deposits to other people and so on.  This is how the fractional reserve process expands the money supply.  This is why I did not include a chart of the money supply since that is counting the same money multiple times.  If I deposited 100 newly minted coins into a bank and that bank proceeded to loan out 80 of my coins where 80 are deposited into another bank who then proceeds to loan out 60 of the coins, and so on....the production of coins only changed by the initial 100 that I minted - not by the fractional reserve multiple. There are historical examples of inflation with gold and silver as duff has pointed out.  None of them come close in magnitude to the inflation experienced with government fiat money." 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. Mining/discovery of gold can be inflationary -- the Spanish looting of Central America for a few hundred years or the gold rush in the 19th century US are examples of that phenomenon. The difference between printing currency and mining is that you have to ability to print money on demand, while mining is limited to whatever is available to extract at a given time. The rising price of gold may be contributing to increased production, as low-grade ore that wasn't economically viable to work with in the 1980's are now affordable. "The relative value of Gold (or any other commodity) as measured against any given currency (such as the USD), is not a constant function either. If you have inflationary pressure, the ""value"" of an ounce of gold (or barrel of oil, etc) may ""double"", but it's really because the underlying comparator has lost ""half"" its value." Contrary to Muro's answer which strangely shows a graph of the Fed's balance sheet and not the money supply, the supply of US dollars has never doubled in a few days.  This graph from Wikipedia shows M2, which is the wider measure of money supply, to have doubled over approximately 10 years, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg The answer to whether gold has a higher chance of experiencing big devaluation has to do with forces outside anyone's control, if a big new mine of gold is discovered that could affect prices, but also if the economy turns around it could lead investors to pull out of gold and back into the stock markets. The USD, on the other hand, is under control of the policy makers at the Fed who have a dual mandate to keep inflation and unemployment low. The Fed seems to have gotten better over the last 30 years at controlling inflation and the dollar has not experienced big inflation since the 70s. Inflation, as measured by Core CPI, has been maintained at less than 4% for the last 20 years and is currently coming off record low levels below 1%. The previous answers have raised very good points, but I believe one facet of this has been neglected. While it's true that the total accessible supply of gold keeps growing(although rather slowly as was mentioned earlier) the fact remains that gold, like oil, is a non-renewable natural resource. So, at some point, we are going to run out of gold to mine. Due to this fact, I believe gold will always be highly valued. Of course it can certainly always fluctuate in value. In fact, I expect in the reasonably near future to see a decline in the price of gold due to investors selling it en masse to re-enter the stock market when the economy has recovered more substantially. Does gold's value decrease over time due to the fact that it is being continuously mined? Remember that demand increases and decreases - we've had seven years or so of strong demand increase and the corresponding price increase suggests there is a lack of gold coming into the market rather than too much. Also, bear in mind that mining the stuff on any scale is hazardous and requires massive investment in infrastructure and time. Large mines frequently take seven to ten years to come on-stream - hardly an elastic enterprise. There is another aspect too for the high prices of GOLD. After the current economical crisis people are no more investing in property and a big chunk of investment has been diverted to GOLD. "Like anything else, the price/value of gold is driven by supply and demand. Mining adds about 2% a year to the supply. Then the question is, will the demand in a given year rise by more or less than 2%. ON AVERAGE, the answer is ""more."" That may not be true in any given year, and was untrue for  whole DECADES of the 1980s and 1990s, when the price of gold fell steadily.  On the other hand, demand for gold has risen MUCH more than 2% a year in the 2000s, for reasons discussed by others. That is seen in the six-fold rise in price, from about $300 an ounce to $1800 an ounce over the past ten years."
Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price   since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective   external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the   gold price (Source).  3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of   reasons:  4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international   tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted   above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a   „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides   a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is   especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices.  One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold,   possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15%   of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on   gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these   policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source)   (Source of above graphs) I think you're missing Simon Moore's point. His point is that, due to low inflation, the returns on almost all asset classes should be less than they have been historically, so we shouldn't rebalance our portfolio or withdraw from the market and hold cash based on the assumption that stocks (or any other asset) seem to be underperforming relative to historical trends.  His last paragraph is written in case someone might misunderstand him, he is not advocating to hold cash, just that investors should not expect as good returns as has happened historically, since those happened in higher inflation environments. To explain: If the inflation rate historically has been 5% and now it's 2%, and the risk-free-market return should be about 2%, then historically the return on a risk-free asset would be 7% (2%+5%), and now it should be expected to be 4% (2%+2%). So, if you have had a portfolio over some time you might be concerned that the rate of return is worsening, but Simon's point is that before you sell off your stocks / switch investment brokers, you should try to figure out if inflation is the cause of the performance loss. On the subject  of cash: cash always loses value over time from inflation, since inflation is a measure of the increase in prices over time-- it's a part of the definition of what inflation is.  That said, cash holdings lose value more slowly when inflation is lower, so they are relatively less worse than before. The future value of cash doesn't go up in low inflation (you'd need deflation for that), it just decreases at a lower rate, that is, it becomes less expensive to hold- but there still is a price. As an addendum, unless a completely new economic paradigm is adopted by world leaders, we will always see cash holdings decrease in value over time, since modern economics holds that deflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy. Dear Sir/madam We are Local Village Gold Miners from Rep. of Guinea, In West African. I am a Member of the Said Community and in charge of Marketing, Advertising, communication and sourcing potential diamond and gold dust buyers, agents/brokers or partners for our mined gold dust AU./DIAMONDS. Prior To The Latest Privilege Accorded Local Gold and Diamond Miners in Guinea Conakry Since April 2007 to Market and Sell Diamond and Gold Dust AU themselves, Thus my offer to AU Gold Dust and Diamond UNCUT Dust prospective buyers, Brokers, representatives, agents, intermediaries and partners willing To Establish Meaningful Business transaction that is Viable and Durable with us. Hence, I'm offering you a Fresh Gold Dust. AU for sale with the following specifications and details. COMMODITY.......................................AURUM UTALIUM (AU) Form................................Gold Dust/nugget Powder. Quantity..........................123kg - 500kgs and more. Quality/Purity.................. 22 carat or better. Finesse..........................92% OR Better. Location.......................... Conakry Origin............................. Guinea . Price per kg......................$35,000 USD/KG  AS FOR THE DIAMOND THAT IS UNCUT, WE ARE IN POSITIONS OF OVER 4850 Carats OF GAMS STONE OF FDGH AND LM GRADES. We are looking forward to your response if our product does interest you. Accept our warm hearted Regards: NB : this is my alternative       CONTACT US CAN SPEAK ENGLISH ,FRENCH AND CHINESE Tel:+22467118646 webs www.africalocalgoldminers.webs.com E-mail: africalocalgoldminers@yahoo.com Rue DI 519 Conakry Republique de Guinee  Best Regard Mr john dabo As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk.  You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered.  There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance.  The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss.  Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy.  A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around.  The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong.  You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group.  Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses.  They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts.  This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs.  The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people.  The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases.  Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure.  Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection.  If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious.  It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further.  Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it.  You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers.  On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that.  On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for.  (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.)   People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk.  The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered. Of course. But then, paper also has utility. So do seashells and pinecones.   There is no obvious reason why, even in a perfect world, we would go looking for a malleable, highly-conductive, corrosion-resistant metal as something to peg the value of our banknotes to.   The argument in favor of a gold standard is not whether gold is intrinsically more valuable than paper or seal skins or anything else, it's that gold is fairly inelastic in terms of supply, so it limits the ability of central bankers to mess up the value of the currency through interventionist funny business.   If you picked up a rock and started going around telling people that we should use it as money because it's highly malleable and conductive and can be used in computer parts, they would look at you like you're a crazy person. That's not why gold is/was/should be a currency.   Gold was indisputably the perfect currency for thousands of years, because it was easy to identify, easy to handle, hard to falsify, and rare. Those were important characteristics when strangers had to carry physical money to different places without any ATMs, credit-cards, or paypal accounts. They are somewhat less critical today, but still...  The one characteristic that might *still* argue in favor of a gold standard is rarity: Since the amount of gold in the world is somewhat fixed, forcing the currency supply to be restricted to the gold supply semi-prevents governments and central bankers from getting into too much mischief (or at least, that's the theory).   I will leave it to others to argue over whether a return to the gold standard would be a good idea, but the argument has nothing to with the intrinsic utility of gold. I'm sure we can all agree that gold is a fine metal with many good qualities. Granted, currencies don't have intrinsic value.   Cryptocurrency is worse than government currencies in a few ways:   - it costs real resources to produce   - no institution keeps values stable   - values are volatile in practice  In those respects, crypto is more similar to a precious metal than a currency. Except it's worse than precious metals too, as metals have some intrinsic value.  Crypto won't be able to overcome these disadvantages to compete with government-issued currencies in the long term. It might compete with gold long term. There are a lot of nuts and gold bugs in the world, and crypto might live on in that fringe space. This is mostly an addendum to @fredsbend answer, which appears to list reasonable causes, but ignores the technical cost aspect. The other answer lists the technical cause, but doesn't explain it in detail. Look at the two graphs (from Wikipedia). This is how difficult -- in terms of computing power, meaning hardware costs and electricity costs -- it has been to mine bitcoins over years:  This is how many total bitcoins have been made since the start of btc era:  As you can see, despite rising difficulty and costs, the bitcoin mining is slowing down. It should be noted that this is by design. If you could use a home computer at start of bitcoin and mine 1 bitcoin a day on it, nowadays, you need to use specialized hardware costing thousands of dollars and pay huge sums in electricity costs in order to mine the same 1 bitcoin in a day. And this happened on the large scale quite recently.  Add the fact that there is no visible way to significantly increase bitcoin mining speed regardless of hardware used -- the network self-adapts.  The more hardware anyone throws at it, the harder it becomes for him and everyone else -- so extra hardware is used in order to drive out smaller players and keep the general ability to mine, rather than to increase the mining speed. Last year a friend and I were considering buying a couple specialized rigs, running on off-the-shelf powerful computers and using extra (gaming) graphics cards for number crunching. As we didn't get on the train fast enough, the graphic cards were bought up by bitcoin mining organizations en masse. Some countries are considering stocking up on gold to shore up their notes.  (Or so I heard)  If this happens, gold will obviously become more rare.  The price will then be valued not only by the buying and selling of it but also by the forced rarity of it.