Share
Being too much of a gold bull, I usually like to read negative articles on gold to keep me tempered and balanced. However, it often seems some writers at times go extremes, and beyond, to prove their point. One such example.is an article on 'The Street'.
https://www.thestreet.com/thestreet-fisher-investments-investor-opportunity/why-investors-shouldnt-chase-gold-after-its-red-hot-run
Starts of with a couple of positives on gold trying to give some balance, then lists several meaningful negatives, then some doubtful ones and finishes with downright stupidity making, to me, the article as a whole, a waste of time.
Quote: "From 1999 to 2002, the U.K. famously sold off all its gold—seemingly a bearish cut in global demand. Gold prices then more than tripled from 2003 to 2010.[xv] So much for bearish."
So let's look at that again. From 1999 Brown's plan to punish gold by not only selling UK's gold, but the silly way he implemented the sale caused the price to fall (as intended -- to appear to make fiat more palatable) from about US$325 to $256 in 2002 when sale was finally completed. So the actual sale WAS bearish. What happened after that was an explosion in price.
For any newbies not familiar with Brown's Bottom. The British Chancellor stated in 1998 the the UK would sell half of it's 750t of gold, by auction. at the rate of 25t every 6 weeks. Naturally the buyers kept the price down picking up said gold at ever decreasing prices. It was only AFTER ALL OF England's gold sale was completed that prices more than trebled, and NOT because of the sale, but because supply had dried up, and demand was still strong. So the UK sale only fed an appetite for gold.
kg
