What he writes is just one part of the equation, in the last paragraph of this article he says,
"Not so with tangibles. The diamond you own or the gold you own or the Picasso you own can not go bankrupt, not if you own it free and clear. This is the essence of a tangible that is wholly owned -- it can't go bankrupt. It is intrinsic wealth. And that's what separates financials from tangibles."
I dispute this assumption because a tangible too can be worthless. It all depends on what you mean by value. An example of this; I could be in a desert dying of thirst, with a pocketful of diamonds, gold etc and would trade it all for a glass of water. It could be that the person next to you wouldnt trade his water for anything on earth, he lives and you die. Furthermore, land, housing etc could be rendered useless, if for example it was turned into a radioactive wasteland. Did you see the prices of New York real estate drop after the september 11 incident, and that was all over a few buildings. What do you think the price of real estate would be worth in any city after a biological, chemical or even nuclear incident.
Its times like these stocks in companies that produce uncontaminated food and water, manufacture cures for various illnesses due to chemical, biological, nuclear causes and shield you from radiation fallout etc will be worth far more than a piece of gold. Off course this all does not mean that gold wont rally in the future , and hit crazy levels, it just means that there are many sides to the same story.
