Talk:Gold as an investment Information & Talk:Gold as an investment Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gold as an investment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

WikiProject Finance

(Rated B-Class, High-importance)

Business and economics portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gold as an investment was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 17, 2007

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

[edit] Let's use the M3b to continue showing the increase in money supply

The M3 is still tracked at M3b here:

http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

It currently is as 13.2 Trillion for the month of March, 2008. mickrussom (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed the article grade

This article seems better than "start" grade to me. Prestonp 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the good article tag on the talk page (only), with only a single line as justification. Also it looks like the reviewer has been extensively involved in writing the article. Writing and reviewing the same article should be avoided. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted this, otherwise I'll probably list it at WP:GAR. Please also see WP:WIAGA. My concern is that it looks somewhat POV Thanks,Smallbones 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss the article with you and make whatever changes were deemed necessary. I don't really understand the NPOV criticism. The article seems relatively straight forward and points out that stocks outperform gold bullion in the United States over a significantly long time frame, which was my addition, BTW. Prestonp 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat POV" - is better than a lot of finance articles. The section "Factors that affect Gold price" - looks like a list of everything that makes gold go up. One of the links looks like a Gold Bug website with a page dedicated specifically to wikipedia readers. The formatting, with links to more specific articles, but without much text in this article. This is just off the top of my head, but I'm sure that somebody going methodically through the GA criteria - as it is usually done - would find these and more problems. My concern is maintaining the usual (if informal) GA process. Smallbones 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't really concerned myself much with the "factors" section of the page, but it seems reasonable enough. As it says in that section, gold's given price is more related to hoarding and dishoarding than other asset classes. I'll go ahead and change the interest rate section to be more general. As for the links, that's another area I don't have much to do with, and I'm sure there are some inappropriate links in there. I changed it from start because, according to wiki's quality scale, it seems clearly beyond the "start" designation. Who would be involved in a more formal review? Prestonp 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I nominated this article under economics at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and changed the grade here to "B" Smallbones 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New link for "Gold as an investment"

Maucapital 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is called spamming and is against policy. SGGH ^speak! 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up external links ...

Refactored many of disjoint external links to a single page which includes the current and historical charts. I may include the 30yr chart soon too.

InsideGold 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the 30 year chart now as well.

(InsideGold 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

I added the currency conversion information and different units of measure to remove the need for the duplicate external link.

(InsideGold (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

Is it a conflict of interest that User:InsideGold is the administrator of the site that the article now links to? It doesn't appear to be a commercial site, but I think it is worth asking this.--Eloil (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories?

Would it be appropriate to add a "Conspiracy Theory" section to this page to reference the efforts of [GATA]?

(InsideGold 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I think it would be a good addition because you can't really delve too far into the discussion without the topic of central bank selling coming up. The price of gold on the market today would be very different if it weren't for central bank selling, so they are THE major player on the world market. But they have been net sellers year after year, so they're engaging in unsustainable behavior and that leads to speculation as to why. Prestonp 18:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I made an initial addition. Please review and change as required. I tried to keep it short and let the linked page do the majority of the explaining. (InsideGold 18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Junior Mining Companies?

Should we start a section that talks about the potential gains/risks with Junior Gold Mining companies? Is this the best page for it?

(InsideGold 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

No, I think Methods of investing in gold is the correct page for that. Prestonp 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... agreed. I'll take a first stab at it and let me know what you think. Stay tuned. (InsideGold 13:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Gold prices versus oil costs

I would have thought these days that there might be a significant connection between gold prices and oil costs. Or is that wrong? Is there some reason why the word "oil" has never been mentioned in connection with this topic --Geronimo20 00:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oil price is strongly correlated with dollar index. The sentence in the article "Today, like all investments and commodities, the price of gold is ultimately driven by supply and demand," is not correct. Oil is a commodity that is largely determined by dollar index. If gold correlates with oil, then gold correlates with USD index. FrankSz (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, weird article this. Surely peak oil is the underlying driver of current gold prices. Still no mention! Oh well, weird weird article this. Should it be nominated for deletion on the grounds that it doesn't address it's core issue? :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can agree that Peak Oil is a reason to invest in gold. Peak Oil is a reason to invest in oil/energy not gold. Let's accept Peak Oil is happening then why would gold go up faster than oil or even as fast as oil in this case? Better to invest in oil, alternative energy, natgas, coal, corn, sugar, energy ETFs etc than gold. Most gold that has been mined still exists in a refined form ready to use, so it is perhaps one of the worst commodities to invest in if Peak Oil is here. Moreover this especially applies to gold mining companies that incur energy costs as a major expense in their operations. Additionally consider Peter Schiff whose 'Crash Proof' book I've linked to. Peter Schiff doesn't seem to believe in Peak Oil but has been investing in gold because he believes the money supply has been massively and irresponsibly increased due to artificially low interest rates by central banks, esp the fed. Having said all this I have nothing against mentioning Peak Oil as a factor for increasing gold prices, and even agree that this is the case. Maybe something like 'Peak Oil, if cheap supplies of oil are running out then there will be a general increase in the price of commodities.'. But (and this is a subtle but important point) I disagree that it is a reason to invest in gold. ICouldBeWrong (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand looking at global production stats http://www.kitco.com/ind/Wiegand/jan112007.html it seems that the most recent peak in global gold production was in 2000, (I don't have more recent figures but I very much doubt a new high was reached sinc jan 2007). Whereas global crude oil production reach new highs just months ago (sorry no link just from memory from reading the oil drum). Peak Gold is possibly bullish for gold. Another bullish factor for gold is 'The bias' physical gold appears to be trading for an increasing premium over the front month gold futures contract. 114.73.22.244 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:

Pass or Fail:

1:

Small grammar issues. I’ve fixed what stood out.
Numerous MoS violations. Some examples:

Inadequate lead - per WP:LEAD, “The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.”
Use of weasel words, e.g. “Some investors consider…”, “Others point out…”, etc.

2:

Numerous additional citations are needed; I’ve tried to mark the ones that stand out. I suspect some of them to be WP:NOR.
Some references that are already there should be better labeled (i.e. references 8 and 11).
Article contains several factual inaccuracies (e.g. “Paper currencies pose [sic] a risk of being inflated” is a misleading statement. A true/better statement would be, “Fiat currencies posses a risk of being inflated.”) Another example is “…governments have been free to print as much money as they choose, without fear that their populations will come knocking on the central bank's door demanding to change their paper money back into gold.” This is not an appropriate or factual description of the consequences/results of the collapse of Bretton Woods system.
Number of suspected WP:NOR violations, e.g. “The above numbers show the falling influence of gold in today's monetary system.” The “Gold's value versus money supply” section needs substantial attention.

3:

The “Types of gold investor” section is only a link to another article and “Methods of investing in gold” contains only one sentence in addition to a link. These sections should contain enough prose to reasonably summarize the more detailed articles.
The addition of a section addressing the historical utilizion of gold as an investment and any pertinent reasons therefore would strengthen the article (after all, the article currently says, “Gold has a long history of being an inflation proof investment” – let’s hear about that history.)
There are issues with redundancy and disorganization which hurt the focus. Money supply and demand numbers are scattered throughout the article (e.g. the “factors” section has “demand” and “supply and demand” subsections, there are demand and supply numbers in the “fundamental analysis” section of “investment strategies” and there is a minimal “supply” section.) Try to combine these into an organized and succinct discussion.

4:

The article has an inconsistent viewpoint. It is, at times, too US-centric (e.g. the “Gold price” chart contains US farm wages and US government debt, but no “foreign” data). It is, at other times, international, as it addresses the central banks of several countries and, in ironic contrast to the US-centric parts, uses the Queen’s English (e.g. organisations). At other times, it is imprecise (e.g. CPI is mentioned in “factors influencing the gold price”, but it is not known what country’s CPI it is {although, one assumes U.S.) The article should be corrected to exhibit a country-neutral viewpoint (as much is possible given the global influence of the US dollar).
Some phrases border on WP:NPOV violations (e.g. saying gold is a “safe haven”; the article should let facts reflect the suitability of gold as an investment.)

6:

The images of the bowl, money as "firewood" and the dinar do not appear appropriate for the topic, which may be an appearance exacerbated by the lack of captions explicitly relating the images to gold as an investment. New captions may remedy this, although I suspect the bowl and dinar, in particular, don't belong.

General: Frankly, the article needs a fair amount of work. I'm happy to help if you need more examples of issues or other assistance. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] :D

"Inflation 1923-24: A woman in Germany feeds her tiled stove with money. The money was worth less than firewood." I think it is hiper inflation. kızılsungur 19:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Gold Investors

First off, who cares? Wow, some people invest for one reason and others for another reason and still other's for a totally different reason. SO WHAT! I am trying to clean this article up and provide citations for everything and am largely the only person doing it. The less text there is to manage, the easier it is to provide citations for everything and the cleaner the article can be. Prestonp (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the different types of gold invesor do fit in with an encyclopedia entry called gold as an investment. However perhaps there is room to tidy the article up, but i would definitely keep this section in some form. What we could do without are some of the implicit opinions e.g. "However, some asset allocators and investment advisors are again advocating it." and I would like the article to provide stronger evidence of gold's low correlation with other asset classes. Although (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you've got an entire graph of gold versus the Dow Jones. WHich other classes where you thinking of? Prestonp (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Prestonp, thanks for your clean up work. I contributed the 'Low or negative real interest rates' paragraph of the 'Factors influencing the gold price' section. Regarding citations I guess my original and perhaps best source is http://www.zealllc.com/2001/realgold.htm this is part one of a nine part series. Part 7, which is the top search result when googling for 'real interest rates and gold' is here http://www.zealllc.com/2004/realgold7.htm , but I like part 1 the best. I'm ok with including this as a citation if no one objects.

I've added some citations now. I hope these are ok and comply with any/all wikipedia standards, if not please accept my apologies.

BTW I'd like to comment on other asset classes, apart from equities (e.g. dow jones) they include cash (cash deposits in some currency), bonds (e.g. treasury securities like 2 year notes), real estate, collectibles, commodities and precious metals. If the money supply (as shown by M3, shadow stats) is increased quickly this new money has previously and may again flow unevenly into the asset classes causing a succession of economic bubbles. In Austrian economics this is called malinvestment and if not properly constrained leads to a crack up boom. The citations I've given indicate that based on traditional valuation metrics (e.g. P/E ratios) bubbles have already occurred in equities (dot-com boom), real estate (subprime) and bonds. ICouldBeWrong (talk) 08 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing this page

Happy New Year everyone! Let's discuss and tackle each of the review points outlined above in numerical order ... starting with #1 the Manual of Style violations. What should the lead for this page be? Personally, I'd like to see some tangible evidence that gold is better than any other monetary vehicle such as foreign currencies, other precious metals or other commodities. Should something like that be the basis for this page? (InsideGold (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Well, Gold has hit a high in all major currencies? Is that good enough a discussion or should there be something else? Prestonp (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but is this a result of the US on the brink of a recession? We haven't seen gold take a run like this for any other major countries getting in trouble. If the USD is the major lynch-pin for gold, should that be our opening statement? InsideGold (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, but right now I'm trying to make the article more concise and documented. It seems like opening with USD being the underpinning of gold is going to be hard to document properly. Prestonp (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems the appropriate section to highlight this. A large amount of the gold.org links in the 'References' section have now changed due to a site upgrade at www.gold.org. Where possible, links have been redirected. If someone could message me then I will assist in locating the correct content within the website.Hdotnet (talk)11:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulls versus bears

This article seems a little out of date now.

The price of gold has shot up and is now in a range above 850USD per ounce. It seems (although it is a prediction of course) that it is likely to stay above the 850 dollars an ounce.

Also i agree that oil should be mentioned as with the increase of the oil price, among with the weaker US dollar has contributed to the increase of gold which, I believe, is seen as a safe haven for many investors now.

Michael IFA (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't say that gold will stay above any price. Hasn't it already been stated some of the factors that control the price of gold (political instability, forex rates, etc.)? Do we need to cite oil as being the factor (seems rather temporal)? That said, I do have some charts I've been playing with which show gold in other currencies ... I find it useful for seeing which countries are hedged against the USD or stand on their own merit. You can see the charts here: Metal by Currency (modified to suit of course) ... would they be useful? --InsideGold (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We have to be careful of not giving OPINIONS about the price of gold or its relative merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Although (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

what is the effect of price detemination of gold on the jewellers and jewellery market??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.193.57 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Bullion?

"Gold bullion" currently redirects to this page but this page doesn't ever really say what a gold bullion is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.20.103 (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See bullion, there is actually a link to there early on in this article if you didn't see it.--Eloil (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

I removed a number of external links that do not remotely meet WP:RS as reliable, independent, third-party sourcing. Many of the removed citations were one of several referencing the same facts; others were links to product pages on Amazon or commercial white pages. Flowanda | Talk 11:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

the amazon links were books, so i put them back with book citations. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - checking all those references muddled my brain. Flowanda | Talk 19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Update and Structure

I am looking to update this article. Does anyone have any suggestions for the structure of this article. I was thinking of something like this:

Introduction
Reason Investors Buy Gold (including 1.Investing in Gold as a Safe Haven and 2.Investing in Gold for Profit)
Methods of Investing in Gold
Investment Analysis (including 1.Fundamental Analysis and 2.Technical Analysis)
Gold Prices
References
See Also
External Links

How does everyone feel about his layout? I know that there are some major changes, but the article doesn't read very well in it's current state.

Notes:

"Gold versus stocks" and "Using leverage" should both be moved to the "Methods of Investing in Gold" article, although I don't think that this article should be separate from this one.
"Gold's value versus money supply" and "Bulls vs Bears" should be merged in the "reason Investors Buy Gold" section.

Please give me some feedback. I will start working on this in two weeks. Thanks everyone. Americanjoe1776 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] citiation fixing

also, i will be sure the put in citations. if you could, please make sure that i cited everything that needs to be once the article is updated. thanks. Americanjoe1776 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable overall neutrality. The partisan (conflict of interest) citations are a problem.

In my opinion, this article would need quite a lot of work to achieve GA. There seems to be too strong a bias in favour of investing in gold. The fact that so many of the assertions are supported by citations from bullion dealing, spread betting, gold share pumping etc sites, is a real problem. These would really have to be replaced by clearly neutral sources (e.g., such as the one I did for the BoE bullion sales). The contrary point of view needs to be stated [such as the one that says that the price of gold is constant in real terms in the long term - it keeps pace with inflation. It advances (or catches up) in difficult times and returns to the mean in stable times. I have no idea where I read that, it's not my subject!] Just my two micrograms worth. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Conspiracy" Theories

Gold price, adjusted by M1, M2, M3, MZM and TMS [1]

This article melts away fast. It could be good for the overall quality, but some valid material is being removed as well. As indicated in the WP:RS significant-minority views should be covered by articles. I refer to the mention of

The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee
The money supply adjusted price charts like the one on the right

What sources do editors removing consider reliable enough, and why do the sources of these institutions are not considered reliable themselves? Emilfaro (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a third-party reference that demonstates the notability of gata, and mises.org is not a reliable source for anything other than their own views, Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can from your point of view Reuters, mentioning GATA qualify it as an existing organization? Can the references in the Ludwig von Mises Institute article prove the same for mises.org? If these organizations exist and have their own opinion would it not violate WP:NPOV not mentioning them from your standpoint? Emilfaro (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reuters mention, it's a press release. Mieses.org is not a reliable source for facts about anything other than their own viewpoints - you use them as a source for something about money supplies, which they are not reliable about. Hipocrite (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, 1. clarify, what do you mean by a press release: Reuters do not publish every press release, that exist in the World, but only the most notable ones. This "press release" confirms, that GATA exists, doesn't it? If Reuters finds GATA worth mentioning, why Wikipedia should not? 2. True Money Supply (TMS) is indeed a measure of money supply (inflation) used by Austrian School of Economics, and can be considered their "own viewpoint". What is important it is not my viewpoint, thus not WP:OR. But this is a significant-minority (Austrian School) viewpoint, so why should not it be represented? Your objections are not clearly understood. You say: they "are not reliable" about "money supplies", the question is why? Do you consider only government data to be reliable? Emilfaro (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reuters did not publish that press release. Buisness Wire published it. Reuters captured it on an automated news feed. It does not establish the notability of GATA. TMS is not a measure of anything. It is a non-relevent number that is used only by one very-tiny heterodox school of economics. While mentioning TMS incredibly briefly in an article about money supply, or having a fuller discussion on it in an article about Austrian Economics might be appropriate, it has nothing to do with Gold as an Investment. I consider only data from Reliable Sources to be reliable. Mieses.org is not a reliable source for Gold as an Investment. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Websites with google ads

I was told that one should not put links up to websites that have google ads or are monetized websites. (e.g I am not allowed to put my website up as it has google ads on.

So how come http://www.goldbullionprices.org/ is listed under the links? Bullion vault is a gold seller and also has heaps of google ads next to a couple of charts.

http://goldprice.org is more a informational site and sells nothing although has some google ads on. I bet that is not allowed.

210.15.236.131 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Michael

Two wrongs don't make a right. These are linkspam in their own right (with or without the google ads, and should go. Which I'll now do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't, because they provide citations, they are not just external links. But, as I've said already, I believe that citing sites that are clearly prosletysing for one point of view is a conflict of interest and seriously undermines the credibility of the article in particular and Wikipedia in general. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The rules for external links are different from the rules for citations. If it is in the external links section but is really providing a citation, it should be moved to the appropriate section. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was [technically] correctly used as an inline citation so can't be deleted without further ado. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Google ads do not automatically disqualify links but many dodgy sites use Google ads, hence the misbelief that we have a rule against Google ads. Nobody raises any concerns about linking to the New York Times, etc, even though those sites also have ads.
You may not link to your own site.
Citations are not sacrosanct. We get a lot of citation-spam and hopefully it gets deleted. You need to make a editorial judgement call -- either to leave the text that it's supporting, adding a {{fact}} tag, or else delete the text.
Our rules for external links and citations are different -- our requirements for citations (article sources) are higher. We want as authoritative and respected a site as possible. So if you're citing historical prices, I'd use the LBMA data from http://www.lbma.org.uk/stats/goldfixg and I wouldn't use either goldprice.org or goldbullionprices.org.
If you see spam, please reverse, issue a polite warning and, if it recurs, report it at WikiProject Spam and one of the spam specialists will investigate and monitor it further. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quantitative Easing

I added a section about the government's policy for money supply fluctuations and it was removed. The reason why I added the section is that the investment-aspect of gold has been significantly altered by quatitative easing by the Federal Reserve. While new to Wikipedia, I have much knowledge regarding the gold mining and gold investment industry. I have been an analysts for the past 15 years for a major metals and minerals fund. Let me know if I should continue modifying this article as it is badly out-of-date.

Thanks, Joel

Jbg.gold (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Joel 14 August 2009

[edit] Images

What is the point of the image of the Yugoslavia dinar? While hyperinflation does affect the nominal value of gold, I think the image is mostly unrelated. Rm999 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inflation adjusted data

I tried to add the 'real' (i.e, 2008 $) price to the table, but I've got an anomaly for 1985. I'm parking the work in progress here until I can find out what is wrong.

Year	Gold, USD/oz^[1]	Silver, USD/oz^[2]	DJIA, USD^[3]	World GDP, USD tn^[4]	US Debt, USD bn^[5]	Trade Weighted US dollar Index ^[6]	Equivalent price in 2008 $^[7]
1970	37.4	1.6	838.9	3.3	370.1	?	207.2
1975	140.3	4.2	852.4	6.4	533.2	33.0442	560.9
1980	589.5	15.5	964.0	11.8	907.7	35.6922	1539.2
1985	327.0	5.8	1,546.7	13.0	1,823.1	68.2042	654
1990	353.4	4.2	2,633.7	22.2	3,233.3	73.2249	581.8
1995	369.6	5.1	5,117.1	29.8	4,974.0	90.3097	521.7
2000	272.7	4.6	10,786.9	31.9	5,662.2	118.6013	340.7
2005	513.0	8.8	10,717.5	45.1	8,170.4	111.5580	565.3
2008	865.0	10.8	8,776.4	54.6	10,699.8	96.0884	865

suggestions as to what the problem is would be welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Or was inflation really that insane? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless each column in the graph is inflation adjusted (and, please don't use such a limited deflator as the United States' (!) Consumer Price Index), it doesn't make sense to adjust any one column. More important, if all of them are unadjusted, there is a straight comparison available, without distortion. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is not a straight comparison when the purchasing power of a 1985 dollar was much grater than a 2009 dollar. Chalk and cheese comparison. (And wholesale gold is priced in US, at least for the present). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Olympic size swimming pool?

I thought an Olympic size swimming pool was 50 metres long, therefore 20.2m is only just over 40% of its length.

This is under "Factors influencing the gold price" Jamescourtenay (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly wrong. I deleted the statement. It should have read "enough to fill 2 Olympic size pools", but this is not relevant or is overemphasis in the context. Kbrose (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Contents