Bratnia

£15 month max, and certain things are excluded, including precious metals https://www.chase.co.uk/gb/en/legal/Cashback-Exclusions/

I'd also been periodically looking, not with any great deal of earnest, a month or so between brief looks only to see them repeatedly being out of stock. I also was originally tempted by the Original PMV (hand held) version but then I saw somewhere that the larger/full (PRO) version does a better job, picked up some fake coins that the hand held missed, IIRC because the Pro scans deeper. I believe the mini pro does a equally as good job, just instead uses your phone as the interface rather than it being in-built. I also believe that there have been batches of group orders/purchases once at sufficient numbers arranged by someone on TSF, but where the last round was aborted due to not reaching the required number. As a stacker neub I haven't really got into physical yet, looking to do so to de-risk paper-gold holdings. So originally I was looking to buy a Pro, but then decided I don't really need one as my intent is to only buy from a reputable dealer and as part of that doing so in person and using their tester(s). Tavex in London is a tube ride away from me, not too much further for you. Their Britannia spreads are good typically seem to be around 3.5% (spot +3% buy, spot -0.5% to sell-back) if trading 10+ at a time. Hoping that they might be obliging enough that when you arrange a private appointment that you might not only see what you're buying but also see them being tested in front of you with a Pro or whatever. I'd prefer that over just a package collection or via postage. Book a slot, walk with your ID etc. and walk out with coins that you'd inspected and seen tested for peace of mind. A possible barrier there seems to be having your debit card payment declined by your bank ("want to spend £15K on gold coins ... banks computers say no").

Not perfect, but the US is structured and does a better job than the alternatives. Open markets, regulatory controls ...etc. Fiat US dollar solves the gold standard problems (finite gold), but introduces other problems. Prior to the 1930's and most savers were content to just hold gold, money was gold such as Sovereign one Pound coins, inflation broadly averaged 0% so deposited gold earned interest that was a real rate of return. The state/crown paid to borrow gold. Since the 1930's and Fiat = no longer costs the state to borrow, what is paid in interest is recouped in inflation and taxation, the state has no need to borrow as it can print/spend money instead. How to play that as a investor? I quite like 67/33 Small Cap Value/Gold. Less weighting into more volatile/rewarding SCV, 67% instead of 100% total stock market, along with 33% gold as a hedge. Whatever might drive 67 stock value to halve might equally drive 33 gold value doubling. 67/33 transitions to 33/67 and rebalancing back to 67/33 has the number of stock shares being held doubled up after prices had halved. Martingale (double-down) style PV for 67/33 vs TSM For UK investors 67/33, FT250 stock index and gold (for US 67/33 VISVX/gold). A factor is that many wont have the patience to hold gold long term, expect more instant gratification. I've set the 1972 start date value to 47 in this link, so it approximates the price of gold in USD PV : Gold where the step/plateau's are less obvious and many are attracted into gold after a step, to later sell after it just plateaus. 67/33 SCV/gold in contrast will tend to have you averaging into gold across plateaus and accumulate multiples more gold, that subsequently yield dividends when the next step occurs (stocks down, gold up). At the start of 1980 the US dollar price of gold was around 550/ounce. In this link for 67/33 SCV/Gold 1980 to 1999 I set the start date portfolio to 1650, so around one ounce of gold initially being held PV At the end of 1999 that portfolio had risen to 15,000 value, so around 5000 worth of gold value at a time (third of portfolio value in gold) when the price of gold was around 300/ounce (end of 1999), indicative of 17 ounces of gold being held. A investor went from perhaps holding 10 ounces of gold initially in their safe in 1980, to holding 170 ounces at the end of 1999. Averaged into gold across the 1980s/1990's. That subsequently yielded dividends in the 2000's when stocks faltered and the price of gold stepped up to a new plateau level. Will that characteristic continue if the US dollar is no longer the primary choice of international trade settlements? I very much suspect it will so see no need to review a 67/33 asset allocation choice. The greater concern IMO is that it is perhaps more inclined to become difficult to actually own/hold gold. States will look to either ban it, directly confiscate it, or confiscate via punitive taxation. So you want to have portable gold that can be quickly/easily moved out of a regimes reach, but at the same time paper gold is also a no-no (gold ETF's or others that claim to be backed by physical gold in a world where there are 120+ claims on each single ounce of gold).

When the US compulsory purchased gold in America (1934) individuals still had the option to use the gold sale proceeds to buy silver instead, or nowadays controls could perhaps be circumvented via the likes of bitcoin/crypto, money moved outside of the country and gold purchased elsewhere. Similar to how a 1934 American whose gold was compulsory purchased could have bought/stored gold in London or Switzerland. More just the inconvenience of having to incur trade cost and time/effort. Someone else has a number on their screen, you still have gold. If anything such government actions as compulsory purchases, currency controls, punitive taxation levels ... are a pretty clear indicator that keeping/moving gold elsewhere is more inclined to be the better overall choice compared to having a number on a screen.

I note that Bullionvault where you can buy/store physical silver without incurring VAT, unless you take physical delivery in the UK, has higher costs for vaulting silver compared to gold. Fair I guess given the extra bulk. For gold storage their fees can be very competitive. Their cost calculator is here : https://www.bullionvault.co.uk/cost-calculator.do Buy, store, sell GBP 1M of gold for 10 years and a 1.4% total cost, 0.14%/year. For the same period/value of silver its 0.5%/year. For a private syndicate/fund/pool that's a potential considerable saving compared to incurring 20% VAT and perhaps 10% spreads.

A gold standard requires either completely unrestricted mobility, free movement of people, capital and goods, no capital control, or it requires countries to adopt fiscal union, one joint federal government. This is because different countries can experience asymmetric macroeconomic shocks. A gold standard will tend to see broad low/no inflation, but high interim fluctuations, at times large spikes in inflation, then large down spikes/deflation, high price volatility is a barrier/cost to trade. Island A buys food from island B and one day the same amount of food costs one gold coin, the next day it costs two gold coins, And if island A runs out of gold ... tough. With fiat (dollars) a island/country enduring difficult times can conjure up more money, borrow/print paper money, not so easy to conjure up more physical gold. Situations like the 2008 financial crisis that were 'sorted' relatively quickly, under a gold standard could take years/decades to resolve. The rush by many to countries to drop the dollar for alternatives will in time see trade barriers and conflicts and a desire to return to trading in US dollars. China would prefer adoption of the Yuan on one hand, but on the other aren't prepared to adopt the free movement of people/capital. The EU is hoping that it best fits the bill, but its largely a socialist (anti-capitalist) entity, as Putin describes it, like the former USSR, but even worse. Under a gold standard people might reasonably be expected to be paid in gold (wages). On a island of population of 100, each owning two gold coins, where the population later has doubled to 200, and each owns one gold coin, then relatively they're each 50% poorer. For many African nations opting to head in such a direction is surprising. A point to note is that the countries that exited the gold standard earlier did much better than those that clung on for longer. So in African individual countries terms, whilst they might all jump into a gold standard/drop the dollar play, those that awaken and leave that sooner will tend to end up being better off than those that clung on.

As I understand it the Russian proposal is for a international trade settlement 'currency' backed by gold, that isn't going to be accessible internally to Russians, is just for international settlements only. Arabia, Africa, Asia all have their own other 'alternatives' also. BRIC's are already a large proportion of the global population, China and India combined populations for instance = 3 billion = 38% of the global population there alone. Africa expands that another 1.5 billion (56% combined share of global population). S America adds another 0.5 billion ...etc. It's way off there being common agreement to a common settlement (alternative) currency, if ever. The motion however is away from US dollars to instead a broad range of alternative agreements between individual countries. De-globalisation. Which induces additional costs and risks. Individual countries may hold foreign currency reserves in proportion to how much they trade with other countries, China holding Russian RUB, Russia holding CNY in reflection of Russian/China trade movements, but more broadly as a general international currency its more preferable to hold a single common currency such as gold or US Dollars. When you hold too much of a single nations currency you are exposed to higher volatility/risk. The US in establishing the US dollar as a single common global currency was on the back of it being pegged to gold, supposedly no different to gold and easier to move (paper). Faith in that has in effect be lost, worsened further by it being weaponised (used to sanction Russia). Ultimately I guess there will end up being three main settlement currencies, One each for Asia, Europe and Americas such that no single entity can block individual countries, nor print/spend and export inflation onto others. Fundamentally not much difference to present arrangements, but where the US is in effect reigned in, loses power (cannot sanction), cannot export inflation (print/spend with little/no domestic consequences). Not so good for American's, however that's the coming to a end of less than 4% of the global population who had the benefit of a near monopoly that enabled Americans to live it (very) large. At the other end of the scale there some have to survive on a dollar/day. A factor there is that a relatively small number (Americans as a proportion of global population) of wealthy gave up much of their wealth, once shared around the rest, the uplift effect can be negligible. Primarily much is simply down to China/Russia looking to take the US down a peg, which in turn has them relatively rise.

In US Dollars, QQQ is up +39% in 2023, cash earning nothing down -30% in QQQ purchase power terms. In 2022 QQQ was down -32%, cash earning nothing gained +47% in QQQ purchase power terms. What you may perceive as a gain from having waited for a dip/dive often lost more whilst waiting. 50/50 tends to be a good choice. Where the other half is deployed after a dive. 50 stock value halves, 50 cash value unchanged, dump the cash into buying more shares and you hold 1.5 times more shares than had you fully loaded into stock at the start. Whilst at least having partaken in a proportion of the stock gains prior to the dive.

Cash is just short term transactional currency, most should hold just enough cash to service transactions (spending) for perhaps a month ahead at most. Beyond that and stocks/bonds are a common savings place for surplus capital. You can however learn by real money, generational wealth, where land, art and gold are the more common preference. Gold and art are portable, can be moved to wherever policies are less punitive. Homes (land) can be sub divided, perhaps two homes in two different countries, along with a yacht home that can also serve the purpose of the means to move gold/art. One should be prepared for a location/country where the laws may suddenly move against them, such as where owning gold is made illegal or excessively taxed. Mere mortals, average Joe, can somewhat emulate that, perhaps by owning a home in the UK, holding US dollars invested in US stock, along with gold. If a country makes conversion between those assets and regular cash (bank account) difficult then the signs are not good. As is common in the UK's present case, where much 'money' is flighting the country. A regret there is that the top 1% pay a third of the total tax take, so as they leave so the remainder are left with having to pay 50% more in taxes just to fill that hole. The 'horrendous' situation is that it is so difficult to live without a bank account. Rightfully and it should be just fine/comfortable for anyone who doesn't have a bank account. Cash should be King, not some banker.

Not if you already have wealth and asset allocate something like 50/50 gold and US dollars (invested in stocks). The US is the heart of capitalism, others only play at that and where states at times might punitively tax capitalism. Either the US (capitalism) does OK and stock gains offset gold price declines and more (residual real gains), or gold rises more than what stock/dollar decline and leaves a residual real gain. I'd buy into a digital coin backed by 50/50 US dollar/stock and gold as a form of 'stable coin' for such reasons. As of yet no such 'coin' exists, however its trivial to create your own. I don't buy into either a state 'stable coin' or Bitcoin. The former is inclined to lose purchase power, the latter is more inclined to be too price unstable.

Gold as a international trade settlement currency can yield price stability for ages (millennia) as it generally did pre 1931. Inflation tended to broadly average 0% etc. But sooner or later that fails, as it did in the UK 1931. If a country runs into difficulties, runs a extended/large trade deficit such that its continually depleting (spending) its gold reserves with little/no gold coming back in the opposite direction, then once that's all spent a country without any money (gold) is in extreme difficulties, typically 'resolved' by war. Post WW2 and the US obtained common international agreement that the US dollar would be used for international trade settlements instead of gold, but also agreed to peg the US dollar to gold. It's easier to transfer paper (dollars) and if any one country in effect spends all of its gold then with paper its just a 'debt restructuring' issue. The US maintained that dollar/gold peg up until after the Vietnam war and had to 'restructure' (end the direct peg of US dollar to the price of gold as a means to pay down the cost of the Vietnam war). But rather than just re-pegging the dollar to a new higher agreed fixed gold price instead the policy became more to align the dollar with gold via monetary policy/controls whenever possible. Fed chairs have that in mind when setting ongoing policies. The main issue with the BRIC members is that SETS, the dollar based trade settlement system has all trades pass through the US, where it has the capacity to see and block transactions such as sanctioning Russia. Russia's response is to establish a alternative to SETS where it instead has control. A gold backed alternative such as proposed by Russia however just returns to the old ways, of where it will work for a while, but sooner or later will falter/fail. Likely therefore is that there will be a number of independent settlement systems being established, so no single state has total control. Not the end of the dollar/US just a reduction in its ability to weaponise (sanction) the flow of money along with being less able to export inflation (print/spend dollars, that devalues all other dollars already in circulation). As such the US will be poorer, less able to print a trillion/whatever to spend on a military/whatever, without also inducing domestic (US) inflation. Gold will likely continue on as before, where its price tends to remain stable/flat for much of time, inter-spaced with periods of 'resets' (price increases). The US will be less powerful, whilst the likes of Russia/China will expand their military might in order to dictate their own desires/objectives. What occurred in the UK 1931 (September) was that the Pound was decoupled from gold, creating fiat currency that's not backed by anything other than trust/faith. The US action in 1933 to follow that lead was to nationalise gold, in early 1934 it compulsory purchased all gold and locked it up in Fort Knox, leaving only the dollar (backed only by trust/faith) as the only available option. Fundamentally its a mess. The West has lived beyond its means, in effect spent all of its gold, whilst the likes of China have accumulated gold. For every ounce of physical gold there are over 120 claims to that gold. Like a bank run if everyone wanted their physical gold to be in-hand at around the same time then there isn't enough gold to go around. So the common suggestion is to hold physical gold in-hand, not in a bank, not via a gold fund that is suggested as being backed by physical gold, as if there were ever a gold-run similar to a bank-run then the outcome is inclined to be the same, many disappointed in not being able to get their hands on "their" physical gold. Be mindful that in the lead up to such a event very much likely is that states would 'outlaw' individuals from holding physical gold one way or another, either by making it illegal to process or via punitive taxation. Those that are compliant and submit/declare their gold would be inclined to lose out. Those that acted illegally and hid/didn't declare would be more inclined to offset otherwise losses, subject to however they managed storage/hiding of their gold. Questionable whether one should act illegally under extreme conditions when laws are made that are questionably excessively punitive. In 1968 UK for instance and top tier taxation was retrospectively applied that amounted to a 138% taxation rate. Earn a Pound, owe 1.38 in tax! Years when the Beatles were singing 'Taxman' "19 for you, 1 for me" in reflection of their 95% taxation rate, and when the likes of David Bowie, Rolling Stones etc. opted to self exile themselves out of the UK.

Sold a gold coin for, two chickens and three eggs profit, that I reported on my tax return, but the taxman hasn't yet come back with how much tax is due. Don't think I owe much, maybe just a few eggs that I'm more than happy to post to him/her The more a state gains control, seeing your movements, where you get money from and spend it, even your thoughts and issues as gifted via internet searches, the more it will look to enforce and extend that control. Where anything outside of that is deemed to be a means to tax evade and stamped down. States and banks have such controls because people have allowed them to continually extend such controls, to levels where as said you pretty much can't survive outside of those controls. When others know where and how much you have (money) its no longer yours, its just a loan, potentially partially "confiscated" at any time. Whilst gold can be outside of the system at present, a time will come when ever expanding state controls will make it illegal. Anyone who values their gold should strive to put up barriers preventing a total transition over to state/bank controls. Doing so will at some point come into direct conflict, but as ever you have to fight for your rights or otherwise see them lost. Sadly however is that there is little general desire for such a fight. There are possible options, such as Bitcoin and Bisq, where as I understand it you can USPS/Western Union money orders direct to trusted strangers in exchange for Bitcoin. Where they never know your name or address and neither does the Post Office when you pay in cash. Bitcoin might then be used for trading, a issue there however is its price volatility. A possible resolution is a more constant value 'coin', such as backed by 50/50 stock/gold. If such a coin could be easily used for trading then more might accept it as a form of payment and where the likes of Bisq cater for direct transfer, peer to peer. A factor there however is that upon the rise of such alternatives so the state is inclined to stamp them out to leave no other option than its preferred choice. Not a trivial battle as if the state loses then so is its currency inclined to collapse/fail. As such its likely a war that's already been won by the state, even though it may lose some battles along the way, and where gold wont be the answer for the unbanked.

The US do still strive to align the US dollar with gold, start of 2013 Yellen to November 2022 for instance and it took the same number of dollars to buy a ounce of gold. That's the nature of the beast, consistency, for a while, interspaced with periods of 'resets'. Not a perfect/consistent alignment, but where monetary policies/decisions are in part made with that in mind, as otherwise 'bad things tend to happen'.

Thanks for sharing. Sadly many with mental health issues do not have a common centralised support (single point of contact/monitoring) and without that even with full mental capacity things can be difficult. I care for my elderly mother who has dementia and without a child I dread to think what she would have endured. Medicines etc. often fail to be delivered, let alone administration of the medication without support. The whole NHS and SS network fails common sense. Individuals are passed between entities on the basis of 'not our job, contact xyz' where even those with full reasoning can struggle. Many that in another era may have been accommodated in a institute are nowadays more often left on their own within the general population. Within the community a district nurse may serve as a single point - for a while, but is typically time limited to at most weeks. I suspect that had you prosecuted it wouldn't really have achieved much and that you took the right action. The Police would have referred the matter to Social Services who would document and deal with the matter ... again for just weeks, but then the individual falls out of the system and back into old ways. Only if the individual causes actual physical harm do the Police really get involved, which for the victim is too late. My father taught me to drive (many decades ago) and I still remember his sound advice of 'treat all other drivers as idiots' - which true enough sooner or later you'll encounter one, be that whilst driving, or dealing privately with strangers. When younger NI was 6% and district nurses were common, as would a GP visit you at home rather than you having to go to a surgery - if you can even get a appointment. Now older and NI has doubled to 12% whilst the quality of services has more than halved. It's less about money and more about lack of common sense and good management practices. The NHS is increasingly a money gravy train, as increasingly nowadays is education. Milked to the maximum, which also drives getting the most out for the least amount of 'business' spending. Ultimately its the population that suffer, such as the incident you endured, or the likes of massive river pollution due to water utilities being driven more by maximising (often foreign) shareholder benefits over that of service provision.

Dow/gold ratio stochastic to define year start stock/precious metals weightings, limited to 25..75 lower/upper as per Ben Graham's advocacy. Precious metals gold/silver ratio stochastic to define how much of the rest (precious metals) should be gold/silver ... and the start of 2023 was showing relatively little gold, mostly stocks and silver Year start 2023 54% stock, 42% silver, 4% gold Had you followed that since 1932 then total returns compared to 100% stock, but achieved that with less volatility (risk). Averaged 63% stock, 20% silver 17% gold. Just one "taste" of possible relative valuations, to be taken with a pinch of salt. But maybe if accumulating it might be better to be adding silver rather than gold.

Dollar is down (ahead of retails sales data), so gold up in USD terms.

I also see the two running alongside each other, that mitigates the US being able to block settlements (sanction via SETS). A gold backed currency is fine whilst you still have gold to trade with, if a country runs a trade deficit that exhausts its gold then all hell breaks out (raging inflation etc.), with paper money debts are 'restructured', still unpleasant but nowhere near as severe, more controlled. Once the alternative is more established the FX costs of conversion will be a burden, as will the price volatility, and many who transition over to the alternative may soon drift back to settling in US dollars for the ease/lower cost and better (prices) stability.

I think it was decent of the manufacturer of the "souvenir gold plated coin" to pretty clearly stamp it with a "this isn't real".

Just to confirm, you're saying that sometimes a credit card will levy 'cash advance' charges as you bought legal tender (gold coins) with the credit card? The same as if you'd used the card to draw out £1500 (whatever) in cash. I don't usually use my credit card to get cash, but believe its quite a high interest rate if you do.

Thanks @SidS Measuringworth indicate gold prices 1900 £ 4.25 1901 £ 4.25 1902 £ 4.24 1903 £ 4.25 1904 £ 4.25 1905 £ 4.24 1906 £ 4.25 1907 £ 4.25 1908 £ 4.25 1909 £ 4.24 1910 £ 4.24 1911 £ 4.24 1912 £ 4.24 1913 £ 4.24 1914 £ 4.24 1915 £ 4.24 1916 £ 4.24 1917 £ 4.24 1918 £ 4.24 1919 £ 4.50 1920 £ 5.65 1921 £ 5.35 1922 £ 4.67 1923 £ 4.51 1924 £ 4.69 1925 £ 4.27 1926 £ 4.25 1927 £ 4.25 1928 £ 4.25 1929 £ 4.25 1930 £ 4.25 1931 £ 4.63 1932 £ 5.90 ... relatively close to 4.248/ounce and where as a sovereign contains 0.2354 toz/gold, 4.248 x 0.2354 = £1. So a £1 note paper currency could still be converted into £1 worth of gold via the market, but not directly within banks (putting aside that there'd have been some cost/spread). I can see the appeal of some pawnbrokers paying more than £1 for a Sovereign such as in 1920/1921 when the market price of gold had risen to >£5/oz. Surprised that the law passed in 1931 to transition over to pure fiat, didn't occur in 1920, as there were the same/similar forces evident, market price of gold > £1 ounce. I suspect that as that fell into the 1914 to 1925 years when war-actions were still in place that it wasn't really a viable option to convert paper Pounds to gold and sell the gold overseas for a profit. Think I read somewhere that some MiddleEastern international trade settlements still in part include gold Sovereign transfers even today. ???

Seem to recall that minimum redemption for gold out of Kinesis is 100g bars, approaching £5000 value at recent gold prices, from their Hong Kong vault. Elsewhere you may be looking at London bars, 400 troy ounces, around £600,000 value. Those sorts of requirements are quite common, which I guess they would be as behind that there are a common set of vaulters/conveyors.

Software has bugs. Distributed ledger is based on a majority and is suggested as being infallible as for any one single entity to grasp control of that majority is beyond reason. There are methods however that can target the roll out of software, or that drastically reduce the number of servers at any one instant in time, where a state funded entity could conceptually grab control with as little as 10% [*A] rather than the 50%+ suggested collective server power. A few seconds of which could corrupt the 'official version' of the ledger and wipe out all value in a instant ... handy as a weapon of warfare! [*A] Servers will service wherever they are more inclined to earn the most, a distraction (carrot) from serving A to instead serve B, as that is the more profitable at the time, along with a surge in the attackers servers serving A has the attackers version of the ledger majority adjusted to whatever the attacker chooses. All eggs in one basket is rarely a wise choice. A remnant from the pre 1932 gold standard years (when gold was money) is that the UK was a global hub. Physical gold bars were moved between cages, each with a individual countries name label, in reflection of international trade. UK/US trade deficit of 1 gold bar, 1 gold bar moved from the UK to the US cage. Much of that gold still remains in the UK so whilst the UK has low levels of its own gold, it holds much gold. Let that all be crypto'd, digital coins/tokens backed by gold that uses a distributed ledger, and then corrupt that ledger and ... whose gold is it? There are no records! Fort Knox holds around 150 million toz/gold, in the UK there's 160 million toz (400,000 bars). There's 127 times more paper gold (claim to physical gold) than there is physical gold https://usdebtclock.org/gold-precious-metals.html A "gold-rush", looking to convert paper gold to physical gold ... would leave many disappointed. A good reason to prefer physical gold over paper gold. A risk there however is that in the event of a gold-rush, likely domestic laws would be changed to prohibit individuals holding/trading physical gold. Noteworthy is that in the instances of gold-seizures, US compulsory purchase of all gold in 1934, UK requiring all gold be submitted to the treasury in 1939 (outbreak of WW2), is that in both cases silver was excluded from that. Whilst broadly gold and silver have yielded similar returns (1932-2022 near-as identical). Silver however has been considerably more volatile than gold, so more generally its good practice to hold some of each, alongside some stocks.

Up to 1931 and Sovereigns were one pound coins, as were shillings silver used as coinage, deposited into savings accounts in return for interest (more gold). That ended in 1931 when there was disconnect between the market price of gold and the value of gold in Sovereigns. Too many were withdrawing savings (gold sovereigns) to export and sell for more than a pound each. Similar to how in more recent times the price of copper soared and the mint changed from using copper in penny coins to using copper plated iron. In September 1931 Parliament rushed through legislation to enforce banks to only pay out using paper Pound notes instead of gold (Sovereigns) as the central bank was running very low on gold. I'd imagine that many might still have held Sovereign coins laying around at home, under the bed just in case even 7 or 8 years later at the outbreak of WW2. With money no longer being gold, the central bank/state could print/spend paper money, hence ever since we've predominately just see inflation (Pound devaluation). Fiat currency (instead of non-fiat commodity (gold/silver) currency). The US followed that lead and in January 1934 compulsory purchased (nationalised) gold, locking it all up in Fort Knox, forcing the population over to using paper Dollars (fiat).

Art, land and gold ... a fundamental asset allocation for generational wealth. Dimson, Spaenjers and Chambers evidenced John Maynard Keynes' lifetime art collection value and observed similar long term total returns to that of stocks. Stocks are easier than art for many ... so stocks, own a home (land) and hold some gold. Nothing knew, the ancient Talmud advocated that asset allocation millennia ago ... has stood the test of time.

Very much a step/plateau price asset. Can involve the need for great patience that many simply don't have, decades such as 1980 to 1999. Those that blend it with stocks and periodically rebalance can accumulate a mountain of gold, that sooner or later sees a sizeable set up. IIRC 50/50 stock/gold held over 1980 to 1999 saw a gold stack increase 6 fold, six times more ounces in your safe at the end of 1999 compared to 1980, without having added a additional penny in savings.