Hacker News Reader

What is ridiculous about that?

Tbonds are pretty much the definition of the "risk free rate of return" for USD. Is there an alternate (non-zero) "risk free rate" for gold that you would like use instead to make comparisons?

View on HN

Because you're comparing the value of one thing over time against the rate at which you would gain value in a different investment over time. I can see an argument for why you might say tbonds have been a better investment than gold, per se, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the necessary volatility of fiat money because it's not backed by anything of real, unchanging value. I'm talking about the purchasing power of the same amount of gold and USD over time.

> it's not backed by anything of real, unchanging value.

Are you actually arguing that gold's value does not change?

Also, what are you using to measure the "volatility" you claim fiat money has so much of?

"what are you using to measure the "volatility" you claim fiat money has so much of"

Inflation.

And 'unchanging' wasn't the best choice of words, but my point is that gold is not subject to the whims of monetary policy makers because you can't create more gold. Gold's value only changes when more gold is discovered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com