At last someone came along and said it, and I thank Mr. J.K., a member of this website, for sharing this with me, because this topic has been a subject of some of our members' vidchats, and it adequately explains why I for one have never been a gold bug:
Now, I'm not advising anything with respect to finances, much less whether, or how much gold, one should have in one's portfolio, if one is rich enough to have something like a portfolio.
What I have often wondered is why in certain schools of economics gold seems to be the be all and end all of money, when a simple examination of history, as I suggested a few days ago, is that media of exchange did not begin with gold, or barter, but with bills of exchange, clay tablets, and -well, to put it bluntly - debt free money.
Indeed, bullion and specie came at a point in history coincident with the rise of the great empires, and began a cycle of the debt-slavery-bullion-military complex that has not abated. There have been those who have advocated some amount of gold in a portfolio, and I am certainly not in a position to argue. But I do have to wonder how a gold standard would work in an electronic world, where so much transaction (and market manipulation) is conducted electronically.
In this respect, this little article is thought-provoking and, in my opinion, accurate: it's a matter of the physical (not paper) possession of assets. It's really this that is behind the recent Chinese, Russian, and German attempts to buy physical gold, but this, let it be noted, is but one aspect of diversifying possession of real physical assets.
See you on the flip side.