How fast does the available amount of gold in the world increase due to mining?
For the last few years around 2,500 metric tonnes of gold have been produced each year.  This is on top of existing supply of 160,000 metric tonnes.  Existing yearly production is around 1.5% of the existing supply. Charts from here. If that fraction is really small, then the amount of gold can be thought of as relatively constant. That fraction is very small. After all, people have been mining gold for thousands of years. So the cumulative results of gold mining have been building up the supply for quite some time. Meanwhile, owners of gold rarely destroy it. A little bit of gold is used in some industries as a consumable. This limited consumption of gold offsets some of the production that comes from mining. But truthfully this effect is minuscule. For the most part people either hoard it like its made of gold, or sell it (after all it is worth its weight in gold). If you're interested Wikipedia lists a few more factors that affect gold prices. (If you're not interested Wikipedia lists them anyway.) Approximately 5.3 billion ounces have been mined. This puts the total value of all gold in the world at about $9.5 trillion, based on $1800/oz. Total world net worth was $125T in 2006. There's an odd thing that happens when one asset's value is suddenly such a large percent of all assets. (This reminds me of how and why the tech bubble burst. Cisco and EMC would have been worth more than all other stocks combined if they grew in the 00's like they did in the 90's.) Production (in 2005/6) ran about 80 million oz/yr. Just over 1.5% impact to total supply, so you are right in that observation.  On the other hand, the limited amount out here, means that if everyone decided to put their wealth in gold, it would be done by driving the price to bubblicious levels.  One can study this all day, and parse out how much is in investment form (as compared to jewelry, etc) and realize that a few trillion dollars in value pales in comparison to the wealth of the US alone, let alone the world. Half the world can't buy two oz if they tried.  Of course there's pressure to reopen mines that had costs pushing $800/oz. Understand that the supply of $300 gold is long gone. As the easy gold has been mined, and cost goes up, there's a point where mines close. But as the price of gold trades at these levels, the mines that couldn't produce at $600 are now opening.
"I'm going to put this very, very simply.  **The banking system does create money through leveraging and the money multiplier**, this is absolutely true.  The current theory is that this is how the economy is expanded because of the basic premise that an economy can only grow with ample amounts of **Land, Labor, and Capital**, and it is assumed that the money multiplier allows the development and purchase of all of these things that have the **net effect of growing the economy beyond the level of debt built up as part of the process of wealth creation.**  I have no problem with the above in principle, the problem comes when the cycle of debt is built up recklessly and irresponsibly with little, if any, regulation.  That leads to a system in which debt and interest buildup faster than wealth is created.  I also have issues with who ends up holding a ""piece of the pie"", as it is called, but that's a separate issue entirely.  **The Fed's job is to stop the economy from collapsing overnight due to fluctuations in the price of money.**  It would be no different if money was backed by gold, and in fact part of the reason why we abandoned that notion as laid out at Bretton Woods was because of how **Gold was being sold as a commodity thus affecting the price of money the way speculation on fiat currency occurred**, due in part to Charles De Gaul being an asshole.  In today's world where **arbitrage** happens almost instantaneously and markets shift rapidly there is **danger** in not having a Central Bank that can regulate the price of currency to prevent disastrous inflation or economy shattering unemployment.  Every nation in the world has one because they are necessary in the context of the current economy.  **Banking regulation** is a multi-tiered problem that involves regulatory capture, Congressional payoffs, a closed circle in terms of who is qualified to even run such institutions, and numerous other problems, but **this is not unique to the banking industry, every regulatory body in existence suffers from the same problem.**  At the moment **the Chairman of the Fed is an appointed position that exists so that key economic decisions will be isolated from the political pressure that elections result in, avoiding hastily thrown together and shoddy economic policy based solely upon politics.**  The independence of Chairmen like Greenspan is questionable, but in theory it's supposed to prevent kneejerk decision making.  **In short:** What I just explained is what everyone else here already knows.  Welcome to the party." That makes sense doesn't it? Longer wait times? Won't that be the result of covering everyone?   So yes, wait times are a concern. Is that your number 1 concern? More than money or how effective the system is? You will pay almost double to wait a month less for treatment(life threatening cases still get treated as fast as they do in the US if not faster), or to see a doctor two hours sooner? You will pay more for a system that gives you less?  The quality of care is not dog shit. I don't know where you get this from. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#45cf82b6576f  You will find this pattern in all other legitimate studies you look at. Your dog shit claim applies to the US more than anyone. Its amazing how willing Americans are to swallow the lie that changing their healthcare system will make it worse. That the free market is the answer. Reality does not reflect that and seeing as this is the economics subreddit, I think it should be very easy for people to come up with reasons why healthcare does not behave like selling widgets.  Now, not all those systems are fully socialized. There are free market elements, for example, Germany and Switzerland are similar to Obamacare, however there is more robust regulations in those systems that help to keep costs down and quality up. The UK does have Universal Healthcare(all of them have a universal system actually, but the UK has single payer which is what I think you meant), and it goes pretty well. Even the Canadian system for all its flaws has better survival rates compared to American treatments, and at a much lower cost. Ask any Canadian if they would prefer the American system, or even if they would prefer to go back to pre-universal coverage days and any sane one would not....and Canada has the next worse system. Its marginally better than the American system, but at a much lower cost.   What you think is ideal isn't based on any real research I suspect. Its based on ideology. This is a real American problem(I think its safe to assume you are American by your claim that ~~universal coverage~~ single payer is dog shit)   If you decide what priorities are most important, and then look at the systems that exist in the world and see which ones best meet your criteria for success, it won't be a pure free market system. Every developed nation had a pure free market system at some point and each one had to switch to a better system. Nobody has switched back. The most free market system in the developed world is not only the worst performing, but also the most expensive.......as economic theory can predict due to the unique nature of healthcare. [Here's](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18) and explanation.  The broadest interpretation is that there are quadrillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of dollars in various markets.  Bill Gates could become a Trillionaire, so even his wealth is a drop the ocean. Well, not really, but you get the idea.  A lot of this money is constantly on the move, it is impossible to track down all the movements. Value is increasing, Value is destroyed etc.  Your bank account can be tallied, but it's impossible to track down the money of the world, a continent or even a small country. Even bigger companies have trouble tracking down their money.  The idea of the 'tally' is a bit of an outdated one, it came from a time when there was a gold standard, and when old fashioned marxism  was still a thing.  //edit: words, English, difficult Based on my research, the answer is both. You would pay taxes on the bitcoin you mine as income, and then capital gains tax when you sell them for a profit (or capital loss if you lose value on the sale).  You can write off a portion of your electricity bill and hardware purchased for the use of mining as a business expense, but it's recommended that you consult a tax professional for determining the proper amount that is eligible for a deduction.  From Forbes: New Bitcoin are being issued by the system roughly every 10 minutes by   a process called mining. In mining, computers running the Bitcoin   software around the world attempt to solve math problems and the first   computer to come up with the solution adds the most recent   transactions to the ledger of all Bitcoin transactions, plus receives   the new bitcoins created by the system, called the block reward. If you are a miner and win the block reward, you must record the fair   market value of Bitcoin that day and mark that as an addition to your   personal or business income. Also note the date and timestamp at which   your coins were mined. Later, when you dispose of those Bitcoin, you   will subtract the date of acquisition from the date of disposal, and   you will be taxed a long-term capital gains rate on any Bitcoin you   held for more than a year, and a short-term capital gains rate on any   Bitcoin you held for a year or less. (The timestamp isn’t absolutely   necessary, but is helpful to validate the order of multiple   acquisitions or disposals within a day.) The amount you pay in taxes on a long-term capital gain will depend on   your income-tax bracket, while short-term capital gains are taxed the   same as ordinary income. From bitcoin.tax:  Another clarification in the IRS's March notice was how mining should   be treated. Mining is income, on the day of receipt of any coins and   at the fair value of those coins. This means that if you mined any   Bitcoins or alt-coins either solo, as part of a pool, or through a   cloud provider, you need to report any coins you received as income. Where it is less clear, is what that dollar value might be, since the   fair value is not always as easy to determine.  Bitcoins, Litecoins,   Dogecoins, are all examples of where there is a direct USD market and   so you can easily find out their value of any given day. However, a   newly created alt-coin that was mined in its early days has no direct   market and so how do you determine its value? Or for any alt-coin,   e.g. ABC coin, that has no direct USD market but does have a BTC   market. Does it have a value? Do you have to make a conversion from   ABC to BTC to USD?  Since there is no clarification yet from the IRS on   this issue you should discuss how to proceed with your own tax   professional. BitcoinTaxes has taken a prudent approach and calculates   value where a fiat or BTC market exists, converting an alt-coin to BTC   to USD as necessary. And from Bitcoin magazine: The IRS also stated mined bitcoins are treated as immediate income at   the market value of those mined coins on their date of mining. “Most don’t know they can write off any losses they have,” said Libra   founder Jake Benson. “The IRS allows you to offset income by up to   $3,000 per year on capital losses.  If you have losses and you aren’t   writing them off, then it’s like throwing money away. Nobody likes   doing taxes, but if you can owe less or increase your return, then   doing your Bitcoin taxes often results in a benefit. In fact, the   majority of our users are filing a capital loss, which means they’ve   actually saved money by using our tool.”  Benson also gives insight for miners.  “Mining is considered income, so know the price of Bitcoin at the time   you mined it,” he said. “If you make money on Bitcoin trading, the IRS   requires that you report gains with line level detail.”  The   appropriate form for that is 8949, a sub-form of schedule D. Gains and   losses, as outlined above, are treated like every other capital asset. "Suppose you have a bar of gold and are hungry. I buy the gold from you for cash, which you then use to buy food, clothes and generally support yourself.  Would it be fair to say that I paid for your food, clothes etc? I don't think so - I think *you* paid for them, in gold. I facilitated the exchange of gold into money, and without me or someone like me around to provide liquidity for your gold, you'd still be hungry. But fundamentally, it was the gold that was valuable.  Now, suppose there is a lack of liquidity in gold - there's a shortage of gold buyers. I take advantage of this distortion to offer to buy your gold for half its free market value. You don't want to accept this deal, but since your only alternative is starvation, you accept.  I say this is wrong, not because of socialism, but because of capitalism. The efficiency of capitalism arises from the price system of value. Goods and services command a fair market price, and buyers and sellers have access to both liquidity and good information about the relative value of things. When distortions are allowed to interfere with free market pricing - as inevitably happens under lassiez-faire capitalism - this efficiency is lost. Good government regulation is necessary to keep markets free and efficient, and this is good for everyone.  So what does this have to do with David Siegel?  First, nothing in my example above changes when you substitute ""labor"" for ""gold."" If I am hungry but I have a skill, and I sell you some of my labor for cash, then use the cash to buy food, *you did not give me the food*. You did not ""pay for my food,"" you did not ""make it possible for me to get food,"" or anything of the sort. *I paid for it myself*, by trading labor for cash in exactly the same way that you could trade gold for cash.  Second, the price system of value allows you to earn a ""normal profit,"" which means sufficient profit for resources to remain within an industry. But ""excess profit"" harms market efficiency and thus the price system. This is pure capitalist theory, straight from Adam Smith; it is nothing to do with socialism or communism. It is quite clear that David Siegel is taking excess profit. This is no different from the sort of profiteering I described when there's only one gold dealer in town. It is parasitic behavior according to *capitalist* theory.  And finally, David Siegel is the guy who invented high-pressure selling of timeshares by inviting familes to a ""free"" vacation, trapping them in a room, and basically holding them hostage until they sign on the dotted line. His business is near-criminal. You can argue that drug kingpins also create thousands of jobs - that doesn't make them good people, or their actions beneficial to society. I already thought David Siegel was a parasite on society before I ever heard of his opinion on Obama. And quite frankly, I'm shocked and appalled that people are actually defending him." Worst case they'll be able to throw a ton of capital towards mining and start grabbing money that's currently going to other people. They see a stream of revenue and work towards capturing as much of it as possible. It's as reliable as gravity. Plan accordingly. It's three and four times what it was just a few years ago.  That spike has regularly been blamed on refining capacity.  There is a disconnect.  Also, you cannot compare with the rest of the world unless you're going to break down cost, taxes, etc. Precious metals also tend to do well during times of panic. You could invest in gold miners, a gold or silver ETF or in physical bullion itself.