Barry Ritholtz has a ‘gold’ post up. It has some poor arguments contained in the article.

3) Cyprus is a terrible example of “governments’ new confiscatory inclinations.” Readers need to recall that Cyprus banks were paying 6% in a zero interest rate environment. These were not “risk free checking accounts” but rather high yield, high risk trades. This “confiscation” as described by the usual paranoics was nothing more than a capital loss in a high risk trade. (about 16 months of interest payments).

That argument is accurate for time deposits. It is inaccurate for demand deposits. The banks took a haircut from ‘demand deposits’. This is clearly government sanctioned theft, so blatant, that even Joe Six-pac ‘get’s it’.

2) Quantitative easing has been going on int he US for 4 years, and worldwide for a while. What is the basis of Hathaway’s assumption that this is a net positive for Gold? We have so few examples of this phenomena that I do not understand his analysis here.

Continued monetary debasement will tend to push people into alternate forms of money.

History shows Gold trades differently than equities. Why? It comes back to those fundamentals.

It has none.

Its fundamental value is that it is, and has remained for thousands of years, money. Money has fundamental value in that it promotes exchange through removing the necessity for the ‘coincidence of wants’, in addition to numerous other valuable variables, which I have enunciated previously, and are not necessary to rebut Barry’s assertion.