From one of my YT channels...

Some interesting charts at this link: What happened in 1971?

So what did happen in 1971 to cause those dramatic changes?

Does the chart showing the number of wives entering after 1971 the work force explain it? Probably some of it, but certainly not all?

KingofHazor said:

---

So what did happen in 1971 to cause those dramatic changes?

Does the chart showing the number of wives entering after 1971 the work force explain it? Probably some of it, but certainly not all?

---

That was the year we abandoned the gold standard.

My bad, I should have realized that, since the link was posted on this thread, there could only be one explanation - the lack of the gold standard. I can only blame my increasing senility as I age.

Having said that, is blaming everything on the final abandonment of the gold standard correct? Doesn't it ignore Nixon's 1971 wage and price controls, the oil shock of the early 70s which triggered inflation and economic stagnation, commodity prices rose far faster than the change in the dollar, massive deregulation, the explosive introduction of new technologies, tax changes, political changes, etc.?

Can all of those charts be attributed solely to the final abandonment of the gold standard?

I think I am gonna sell some silver Franklins. And Washingtons

Any suggestions on what to read? Preferably not an entire treatise.

And I have charted stocks against gold. There is very little correlation. Stocks have increased in value exponentially more than has the price of gold.

The dollar was already dropping dramatically in value prior to 1971. Why was that? That's what forced Nixon's hand. European countries were literally lining up to exchange their devalued dollars for gold causing us to run out of bullion. Even the great Milton Friedman said that getting rid of Breton Wood was a great thing.

KingofHazor said:

---

Any suggestions on what to read? Preferably not an entire treatise.

And I have charted stocks against gold. There is very little correlation. Stocks have increased in value exponentially more than has the price of gold.

The dollar was already dropping dramatically in value prior to 1971. Why was that? That's what forced Nixon's hand. European countries were literally lining up to exchange their devalued dollars for gold causing us to run out of bullion. Even the great Milton Friedman said that getting rid of Breton Wood was a great thing.

---

Huh?

Since 2000 the SPX has underperformed gold, and its been falling again since the top in early 2022.

I thought that we were talking about 1971 on?

My gold holdings dropped a lot and stayed down starting in the early 90s until recently.


Gold Price vs Stock Market - 100 Year Chart | MacroTrends

Also, inflation started well before 1971. Apparently caused by our deficit spending and the growing realization that we did not have enough gold reserves to cover the dollars that were outstanding.

My suspicion is that the core problem is deficit spending, not the currency.

KingofHazor said:

---

I thought that we were talking about 1971 on?

My gold holdings dropped a lot and stayed down starting in the early 90s until recently.


Gold Price vs Stock Market - 100 Year Chart | MacroTrends

---

Oh really?

Gold doesn't lose value. What you experienced was the stagflation of the economy and the dollar GAINING value for a brief period of economic contraction. Perhaps you bought gold in the late70's and perceived that period until the 90's as a drawdown in your investment. But even at that bottom in the 90's, gold was up over 600% (dollar down) from the day we left the gold standard.

KingofHazor said:

---

Also, inflation started well before 1971. Apparently caused by our deficit spending and the growing realization that we did not have enough gold reserves to cover the dollars that were outstanding.

My suspicion is that the core problem is deficit spending, not the currency.

---

Leaving the gold standard wasn't the first time our country experienced inflation. Even tied to a stable value like gold, there can expansions and contractions of monetary policy as credit becomes plentiful and trust high followed periods with credit becomes tight and trust is low. But by having an asset backed currency, that stretch can never get too far. The rubber band always snaps back. That's WHY they left the gold standard. The government needed to spend money and the gold anchor on the currency was preventing any further expansions. The 2000 bubble was exactly what happens when you remove an anchor that is keeping you from straying too far from reality. And we're about to see it happen again in the coming years on steroids.

I bleed maroon said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

I thought that we were talking about 1971 on?

My gold holdings dropped a lot and stayed down starting in the early 90s until recently.


Gold Price vs Stock Market - 100 Year Chart | MacroTrends

---

It all depends on the time frame you cherry-pick to make your argument look better. 10, 30, and 50 year charts all significantly favor the S&P over gold. Luckily for H-A, the 25-year time period is a sweet spot of looking like an objective timeframe to select, with a Dotcom-bust induced favorable outcome for gold. He should enjoy it while it lasts, as I believe the 25-year lookback from 2026 to 2001 is much less favorable for his argument (which also usually excludes reinvesting S&P dividends along the way). But we've had this discussion before, so I digress.

I'm not a gold-basher, I just am a true believer that you can manipulate charts and datasets to your advantage very easily. There is probably room for precious metal exposure in most portfolios - just invest with your eyes wide open.

---

That's laughable. We can go back to 2002, the bottom of the dotcom crash. Stocks are worth less today than gold from that point too.

Understanding why stocks ballooned into parabolic dotcom frenzy and then crashed REQUIRES understanding what our money is.

From 2000 on, literally the time period anyone 45 and under has been paying taxes, stocks have been nothing more than an expansion of money supply and a devaluation of purchasing power. Actual productivity of the economy has been negative.

Maybe the all-time history chart of PPI vs gold would suit you better? Or is this chart manipulation too?



No no, lets do CPI



Damn. Maybe we try GDP?

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

From 2000 on, literally the time period anyone 45 and under has been paying taxes, stocks have been nothing more than an expansion of money supply and a devaluation of purchasing power. Actual productivity of the economy has been negative.

---

Ahhh, the old moving the goalposts method. Nice!

Since the S&P has outperformed gold during all but 5-10% of historical time periods, you change the subject to something entirely different, WHICH GOLD DOESN'T PROTECT YOU FROM EITHER, in fact, it performs worse. And produces no dividends to reinvest (which you continue to ignore).

First rule of holes - when you find yourself at the bottom of one, quit digging...

You don't need to keep editing and adding more charts for your sidetrack subject-change. Start a new thread that says what a terrible economic system we have in America. I might agree with you on some of that topic. In fact, I'd readily acknowledge that America's free enterprise system (warts and all) is the second worst system ever created - - the problem is that all the others are tied for first!

Peace, mi amigo.

This conversation is more relevant since the start of the COVID money supply expansion imo.
Unprecedented and we are currently dealing with the tidal wave worldwide. So 2020 forward needs to be considered more closely. No denying the increase in equities and metals since 2020.

Going back 100 years, I'll argue neither has been more consistent than the ever increasing price of land I am familiar with in Texas.

Talk about a lost decade - look at 1988-1999:

Quote:

---

1988
16.61% S&P
-15.69% Gold
No (Gold didn't outperform the S&P)
1989
31.69%
-2.23%
No
1990
-3.10%
-3.69%
No
1991
30.47%
-8.56%
No
1992
7.62%
-5.71%
No
1993
10.08%
17.64%
Yes (yippee! one out of twelve ain't bad)
1994
1.32%
-2.17%
No
1995
37.58%
0.98%
No
1996
22.96%
-4.65%
No
1997
33.36%
-22.21%
No
1998
28.58%
0.57%
No
1999
21.04%
0.54%
No

---

So, for that entire period, you not only lost a lot of money with gold, but had to forego a huge S&P return. Thoughts?

Mas89 said:

---

This conversation is more relevant since the start of the COVID money supply expansion imo.
Unprecedented and we are currently dealing with the tidal wave worldwide. So 2020 forward needs to be considered more closely. No denying the increase in equities and metals since 2020.

Going back 100 years, I'll argue neither has been more consistent than the ever increasing price of land I am familiar with in Texas.

---

When you consider carrying costs (property tax, maintenance, realtor commissions, closing costs, etc.), you're almost assuredly no better off with land. HOWEVER, if you can develop it to provide income, it certainly can do so in the right hands.

You are correct, land performed Much better than both of those in that decade.
ETA: I Assure you that I am much better off. And it's not even close.

We are backing Israel right now with no embargo.

I have no idea what I'm doing but I bought 200 2021 American Silver Eagles from Monument Metals several years back and way over-paid by all accounts. How do I value these now? Is it just $40 x 200? Is that all there is to it?

I have never actually sold any silver but I would say you need to find an individual if your trying to get 40
But silver eagles are not my wheelhouse

Good luck. And I am with you on overpaying for crap

If you're not going to hold long-term and trade for land or gold, go toSDBullion.com and Walmart.com and research ASE prices.

You can get a feel for selling prices and SD Bullion will quote a buy price if you ask.

I bleed maroon said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

From 2000 on, literally the time period anyone 45 and under has been paying taxes, stocks have been nothing more than an expansion of money supply and a devaluation of purchasing power. Actual productivity of the economy has been negative.

---

Ahhh, the old moving the goalposts method. Nice!

Since the S&P has outperformed gold during all but 5-10% of historical time periods, you change the subject to something entirely different, WHICH GOLD DOESN'T PROTECT YOU FROM EITHER, in fact, it performs worse. And produces no dividends to reinvest (which you continue to ignore).

First rule of holes - when you find yourself at the bottom of one, quit digging...

---

You mentioned S&P, not me. Not sure how I'm moving the goalposts. You said I cherry picked and I showed charts proving that the end of the gold standard correlated with a gradual first, then massive expansion of money supply. In 2000, stocks peaked relative to gold SINCE the end of the gold standard (the entire conversation we were having), as did PPI, CPI, and GDP. The latter three are threatening new lows against gold (meaning productivity in the economy as measured in sound money is actually negative for a quarter century), proving that the stock market is a mirage requiring massive incursions of debt and expanding money supply. For the last quarter century, you know.. the time period people under the age of 50 have been actively investing, merely holding gold has outperformed the S&P even when including dividend reinvestment.

It's ok to admit you don't know that loose monetary policy is the primary driver stocks have gone up. But to tell someone else they are moving the goalpost when you are the one failing to understand the topic at hand, and to do so in such an arrogant manner, it's pretty laughable. Especially on a thread where 99% of the participants actually understand gold.

And for the record, I've made it clear on this thread over the last year or two that not even precious metals are to be held forever. They, like anything, go through periods of boom and bust. While gold is actual stable money, there will be periods of debt deleveraging where the dollar and purchasing power will gain, and everything valued in dollars will fall against them. Just a page or two ago I even posted what I'm watching that will tell me to de-risk from metals. There are times to be in stocks (risk on) and times to be in gold (risk off). I just think its funny that the largest risk on period in history (2010-present), fueled by the quickest and largest expansion of money supply in history (twice.. 2008 and 2020), is STILL underperforming against gold.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

You mentioned S&P, not me.

Umm, wrong. This is literally a quote from you above on this very page to start this discussion: "Since 2000 the SPX has underperformed gold, and its been falling again since the top in early 2022."

Not sure how I'm moving the goalposts. You said I cherry picked and I showed charts proving that the end of the gold standard correlated with a gradual first, then massive expansion of money supply. In 2000, stocks peaked relative to gold SINCE the end of the gold standard (the entire conversation we were having), as did PPI, CPI, and GDP. The latter three are threatening new lows against gold (meaning productivity in the economy as measured in sound money is actually negative for a quarter century), proving that the stock market is a mirage requiring massive incursions of debt and expanding money supply. For the last quarter century, you know.. the time period people under the age of 50 have been actively investing, merely holding gold has outperformed the S&P even when including dividend reinvestment.

you are changing the subject to a THEORY of cause and effect, when you initially were talking about actual historical performance (which I responded to). One is a hypothetical prediction, and one is empirical data from the past. If that's not moving the goalposts, I don't know what is. It's one thing to argue that gold does or doesn't outperform the S&P over periods of time in the past, but posing what going to happen in the future is not evidence, it's a guess, educated or otherwise.

It's ok to admit you don't know that loose monetary policy is the primary driver stocks have gone up. But to tell someone else they are moving the goalpost when you are the one failing to understand the topic at hand, and to do so in such an arrogant manner, it's pretty laughable. Especially on a thread where 99% of the participants actually understand gold.

I don't take your response personally, but here is where you go off the rails, and we're no longer having a discussion - it's a belief system you strongly adhere to, not a factual debate anymore. That's OK, but count me out. I don't intend to sound arrogant - apologies. I believe gold is just another substance that we assign a value to, it's not "understood". Its value varies just like oil, greenbacks, stocks, bonds, and football.

And for the record, I've made it clear on this thread over the last year or two that not even precious metals are to be held forever. They, like anything, go through periods of boom and bust. While gold is actual stable money, there will be periods of debt deleveraging where the dollar and purchasing power will gain, and everything valued in dollars will fall against them. Just a page or two ago I even posted what I'm watching that will tell me to de-risk from metals. There are times to be in stocks (risk on) and times to be in gold (risk off). I just think its funny that the largest risk on period in history (2010-present), fueled by the quickest and largest expansion of money supply in history (twice.. 2008 and 2020), is STILL underperforming against gold.

---

I'll just get in my last word because you're talking in circles now, and then this thread can get back on topic. Read my final comments in bold above…

We can discuss predictions of economic, fiscal and monetary policy effects on another thread, maybe?

Yes, my comment on S&P was in response to someone who was not you who claimed S&P has outperformed gold since 1971. And my response to him is still factual and correct. Then you had to interject with your lack of understanding. Maybe go ahead and start this new thread you want to start so badly. I'll continue sticking to the point of this thread.

Does it realy matter what gold silver and the s&p has done against each other

If I had my chance again I would invest in real estate

Ag exempt real estate in the 2000 era
Thats an investment