Gold hits €78 per gram, reigniting currency debate

Gold reaches €78 per gram, reopening the war against fiat currency

A kilogram of gold costs €78,000. This figure, repeated endlessly in casual conversations, hides what truly matters: the gram has surpassed €78, and every rise in the yellow metal is read as a symptom, not news. The discussion isn't whether gold is expensive, but why it holds such value while fiat money depreciates unchecked. For some analysts, gold isn't rising; the euro is falling. For others, the metal retains purchasing power while colorful banknotes dissolve. In the middle lies an uncomfortable question: does gold serve any purpose, or is it merely an ancient convention we accept out of inertia?

What it means for gold to trade at €78 per gram

The starting point is deceptively simple. A kilogram of gold sells for €78,000, placing the gram at €78.09 and the ounce at levels that sounded like science fiction a decade ago. The dominant view among those tracking the metal is that gold hasn't appreciated; rather, the euro has lost ground against an asset independent of any central bank. Gold endures while everything else perishes, summarizes one of the most repeated arguments in the analysis.

One statistic often cited to reinforce this thesis: those who bought ounces in 2004 have seen their investment multiply by 7.6 times, while wages and prices have risen far less, according to calculations circulating in the debate. The consequence, per the same source, is a relative impoverishment of the working class measured in ounces, not euros. A worker who earned nearly four ounces of gold monthly in 2001 doesn't reach one today, argues a participant. That calculation, broken down item by item, reveals a disparity more disorienting than any inflation chart.

Gold isn't printed, but it is mined: the scarcity argument

The classic defense of the metal has a weak spot that quickly emerged: if gold is scarce, why are 3,000 tons extracted annually? The objection is reasonable and requires nuance. Gold lacks a central printer issuing it at will, but it has a mining industry adding stock each year. The difference from fiat money isn't the absence of issuance, but that no political decision can duplicate existing gold.

This adds another reality often ignored: part of the metal is consumed in industrial, aerospace, and electronic processes, reducing available stock. Industrial mining moves massive investments and operates on scales that don't reflect the romantic image of the solitary prospector. Annual production isn't whimsical; it responds to extraction costs acting as an informal price floor. If the metal falls below that threshold, supply withdraws itself.

Silver, the poor cousin that also rises

The debate extends to silver, where the analysis becomes more technical. Its price comprises two components: monetary, weak because gold is always preferred as a store of value, and industrial, volatile because it depends on the economic cycle. For silver to surge significantly, two scenarios must occur: investors viewing it as an affordable alternative to gold, or accelerating industrial demand. Neither is guaranteed.

An anecdote illustrates the point: years ago, speculation arose about buying homes paying with two kilograms of silver. Today, that equivalence sounds like a joke, but it accurately measures the distance traveled. Silver has appreciated, though without gold's epic status. Its dual nature—monetary and industrial—makes it a harder asset to interpret than the yellow metal.

Why did gold fall during World War II?

The most uncomfortable objection to the eternal safe-haven thesis comes from history. During World War II, the metal didn't rise: in 1939 it traded at [$]35.04[/B] and in 1944 at [$]34.71[/B]. In a scenario of famine and destruction, a gold earring wasn't worth a chicken. Marginal utility prevails: when food is scarce, the metal loses its function as a medium of exchange.

That data dismantles the idea that gold always protects under any circumstance. It shields against monetary inflation, not physical collapse. Therefore, the discussion isn't whether gold is a refuge, but of what. Those buying it as insurance against the money printer are right; those buying it as insurance against the apocalypse are wrong. The distinction seems obvious until forgotten.

The war against the dollar and paper that isn't silver-backed

The geopolitical backdrop runs through the entire analysis. Gold competes with the dollar as the international reference, and this competition generates manipulation, according to one recurring thesis: for every physical ounce, there would be 100 financial derivatives. The world needs a value reference independent of a single country's printer, and no candidate surpasses the metal. In this war, the bet is binary: productive capacity or financial magic.

Irony strikes when recalling that even silver certificates weren't backed by silver. The scam, they say, is universal. Physical gold becomes the natural enemy of a system allowing nations to be bought with unbacked notes. A gold standard would limit that capacity, which is why beneficiaries of the current system view it with suspicion.

---

The unanswered question remains the same: if gold preserves value while money loses it, why doesn't everyone buy it? The uncomfortable answer is that buying it requires sacrificing liquidity, assuming custody risk, and accepting that its price also falls. No one said it was easy. Only that, at €78 per gram, it remains the only asset no central bank can create from nothing.