If you had bought something productive like the S&P500 50 years ago, would have outperformed gold easily. No-one wants to long-term just store value unproductively (which is also bad from a macro perspective).
As I said, currency is by design (targeted positive inflation) not there to be a long-term store of value. Not sure anything but productive assets could really be that.
> Not sure anything but productive assets could really be that.
reply
I just mentioned one: gold. It's a bit early to tell for Bitcoin, of course it's probably not going to be doing 225x every decade, but I could see it holding its value better than the US dollar does.
Not sure about gold in the really long-term. There is some data but those comparisons are quite difficult and often flawed. For example, the amount of work you can buy per unit weight of gold might very well be down noticeably from the middle ages.
Bitcoin we can come back to in another 150 years or so.
> For example, the amount of work you can buy per unit weight of gold might very well be down noticeably from the middle ages.
Interesting, I didn't know that. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine what other asset would have successfully preserved its value all the way back to the Middle Ages. Certainly not company shares. Real estate maybe? Although that would require maintaining ownership through numerous wars, revolutions and tax regimes.
Time in the market is the dumbest thing ever propagated on society by the media. Seriously it's so easy to buy low and sell high if you pay the people who watch markets. I find the issue with knowledge workers is er overestimate our skill and don't realize how dumb we really are. For example I helped Tesla and should have sold last year but didn't listen to to the guy I'm paying $1500/month yet if I did I could have bought in January and sell again today. Next time I'll be better prepared.
