Gold up 500% vs basket 25%, forum user claims

Two yardsticks for the same period

Is gold expensive, or is money worthless? This doubt plagues anyone comparing the metal's price with a grocery bill, and the answer shifts depending on the metric used. According to a calculation circulating in the forum, between 2002 and 2011 gold posted a 500% gain measured in fiat currency, while the shopping basket—referred to as "cans" in thread jargon—barely advanced by 25%. Two ways of counting the same period. If the yardstick is the metal, a can of tuna is worth four times less. If the yardstick is the can, the metal is worth four times more.

The calculation pitting the metal against the shopping basket

Neither reading is deceptive, though each has its adherents. Those who already hold gold in their safe measure in ounces and see their purchasing power rise, because they fill the cart with the same amount of metal as before. Those paid in banknotes measure in euros and find that the same ounce, which once cost a known percentage of their salary, now costs significantly more. The gap isn't arithmetic; it's a matter of unit of measurement.

The nuance lies in the production chain. A product maintaining its price doesn't miccionan it maintains its margin: if a can of tuna still costs the same but the local fisherman has vanished and raw materials come from another country, stable prices hide a complete redistribution of business. This applies to milk and half the basket. Comparing prices without looking at who collects them misses half the picture.

Hence the success of certain methodological inventions. The most cited is the Milor, a sort of virtual gold standard that measures all currencies against the metal and helps distinguish whether gold is rising or paper is sinking. Equivalent charts—housing prices, oil, or the S&P index expressed in ounces—have circulated among investors for years, and many participants consider them the most honest way to know if the metal is expensive or simply less cheap than its competitors.

Why gold has been money since the 4th millennium BC

The historical argument is repeated insistently: there are gold objects in burials from the 4th millennium BC, ceremonial hats from 1,400 BC, and coins minted in the 7th century BC. No central bank voted on any of this. The metal prevailed through tacit consensus—scarce, non-corrosive, divisible, and not manufacturable at will—and politicians would have liked to get rid of it.

The entire premise rests on this idea: gold is not just another raw material; it is the direct competitor of fiat money. And if it is money, then it doesn't appreciate: it is the banknote that depreciates, argue the metal's defenders. "Perhaps what happens is that gold and silver aren't worth much, but rather paper is worth too little," summarizes one of the most repeated currents.

Could the 1980 crash repeat itself?

The last major correction for the metal dates back to 1980 and is the mandatory reference for calibrating risk. Those dismissing a repeat point out that year marked the start of a credit expansion now reaching its end, a different cycle. Skeptics urge reviewing the exact reasons for that collapse before declaring the scenario dead. The precedent is 1971: Bretton Woods died when the US government could no longer back printed money at $35 per ounce.

The $1,000 threshold and mine closures

For one forum user, there is a floor independent of anyone's faith: below $1,000 per ounce, a very significant portion of mining operations would cease to be profitable and shut down, leading to lower production, reduced supply, and upward pressure on prices. Another participant supports the thesis: banks already demand very strict antiestéticasibility studies, even duplicated, before financing a project, and without funding, there are no new mines to compensate for those going dark.

Paper gold, certificates, and metal not in the vault

Remains the most uncomfortable chapter: that of nonexistent gold. Suspicions of manipulation channel through so-called paper gold, derivatives and certificates promising metal without moving an ingot. In this area circulates an unconfirmed warning: only physical gold deposited in a bank vault would have zero risk, while possession certificates would carry a maximum risk profile. No one has proven that this distribution is current.

Everyday scenes help gauge the temperature. A forum user who visited a bullion dealer found they only sold chains, beads, and second-hand pieces, but no coins. "What if coins come in?" he asked. "There's no way to keep them," came the reply, with a smile. The detail is anecdotal, but it describes a business where good pieces are set aside before reaching the display case.

With these elements, knowing if metals are in a bubble depends on whether one believes any central bank will confess to printing too much. It never has. And gold, meanwhile, continues to owe explanations to no one.