Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

There are foreign currencies that are stable.

The thing with "some analysts" "predicting" "disaster" is that it basically drives people to bet against the unknown if not the improbable. "Some analysts" are notorious for being wrong.

Society tends to obsess over gold, and that in itself should be a warning sign.

What do you do when institutional investors dump gold if they get jittery over the price run-up and/or want to cut a profit after a ten-year gain? Retail investors might find themselves holding $200 less per ounce than what they paid for it. Or worse.

What if disaster never comes? You've just wasted money on something that is only theoretically secure in a theoretical disaster.

How much of the gold price is speculative do you think? How high will it go before people take profits and push the price down?

Originally Posted by filtherton

The standard method for making sense of economic data is to first decide on some sort of governing philosophy, (ie supply side, Keysianism). Then you simply wedge whatever data you come across into this philosophical framework. Occasionally, you will come across data that seems to invalidate the basic assumptions of your chosen philosophy- these data should always be treated as outliers and ignored, because hey, you already know how the market works, so it's the data that's wrong, not you.