I was prompted to write the prior piece on the inability to achieve certainty as a result of observing (and sometimes) engaging in an ongoing debate, on three other sites, regarding the nature of, and prospects for, gold. Quite frankly, I'm more than a little tired of debating the merits of gold to those who appear programmed against the very idea of gold acting as a store of value. I detect-over and over- a combination of obnoxious recalcitrance and immaturity in those who attempt to make arguments against gold's utility. This is especially the case given the superior performance of physical gold and silver to all other asset classes over a one year, five year, and ten year basis.
In the case of one particular commentator, who asserts-his assertion being, more precisely, a belief, based as it is on projections that have nothing like a guarantee (ah, there's uncertainty again) of coming to pass-that just about anything but gold will act as the future's value storage mechanism, he neglects to admit, except very occasionally, that gold could (continue to) do well for some number of years until his model takes hold. To quote the arch hater of the old gold standard, John Maynard barbarous relic Keynes, "In the long run we're all dead." As such, in the meantime, while waiting for the the longest running tradition in human experience of one item acting as money over time, to end, you will lose your shirt, if you haven't already, should you choose to act on the formulations of those who mistake (and misrepresent) the way the world is, for the way they envision it at some unspecified point in the future.