"Era of U.S. dollar may be winding down"

Well duh! Anyone paying attention knows dollar hegemony is over.

And as they say in Poodleville, "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied", despite even Yellen admitting the World can have more than one reserve currency.

Here is one of many examples of such a denial:

Gold is certainly on a roll. Its price has increased by more than 40% over the past year.
- Gold is booming – but how safe is it for investors, really?

That's news to me! It's only up about 13% yoy.

In late April it rose above $3,500 (£2,630) per troy ounce (a measurement for precious metals). This marked an all-time record, even allowing for inflation, exceeding the previous peak reached in January 1980. Back then the dollar price was $850, or $3,493 in today's money.

Except that inflation statistics are notorious for being BS. In 1980, the Great Satan monetary base was about $200bn so to cover 8,133.5tons would be a price of $765, whilst today's equivalent is $6.66Trn giving a price of $25,469, so has plenty of room left to run.

But what goes up can also come down. While gold has a reputation as a stable asset, it is not immune to price fluctuations.

But as gold-bugs correctly point out, gold is stable, it's the paper funny-money which is volatile.

Unlike shares, it will never pay a dividend. Unlike bonds, it will not provide a steady, predictable income, and its industrial applications are relatively limited.

Again, misinformation. Gold doesn't need to provide an income because it holds its value as the article itself then admits:

It is also used as an insurance policy against inflation: while currencies tend to lose value over time, gold does not.

Again taking the increase in the monetary base from 200bn to 6.66trn, that's an average of 8.1% per annum. Which bonds or shares currently pay such rates?

Furthermore, income is taxed each year, whilst capital gains are only taxed when you sell. So the gains in gold are compounded and as Einstein joked, compounding is the most powerful force in the universe.

There has recently been a significant rise in demand for gold from so-called Exchange Traded Funds, investment vehicles that hold an asset such as gold themselves, while investors can buy and sell shares in the fund.

They are popular with large institutional investors – and their actions have helped to push up the price.

Doubtful! ETFs are notorious for not having the physical gold to back claims which is why only large institutional investors are allowed to take delivery. So ETFs neutralise investment demand. Furthermore taking delivery is then used to smash the gold price as the physical is dumped onto the markets as happened in 2013, just before markets opened on a Monday morning in Cesspit London.

When gold hit its previous record in January 1980, the Soviet Union had just invaded Afghanistan. Oil prices were surging, driving up inflation in developed economies, and investors were looking to protect their wealth.

More lies. Russia was invited in.

As for the oil price, that was responding to the currency debasement just as gold was. Oil did NOT cause inflation.

According to Daan Struyven, co-head of global commodities research at Goldman Sachs: "In 2022 the reserves of the Russian Central Bank got frozen in the context of the invasion of Ukraine, and reserve managers of global central banks around the world realised, 'Maybe my reserves aren't safe either, what if I buy gold and hold it in my own vaults?'

Another crock o' s**t! The Great Satan WILL, BEYOND ALL DOUBT, default, because it's IMPOSSIBLE to pay its debts.

Indeed Goldman Sachs has forecast gold will reach $3,700/oz (£2,800/oz) by the end of 2025 and $4,000 (£3,000) by mid 2026.

Yet the markets are supposed to be forward looking. So at best, the Giant Vampire Squid is predicting how the price will be manipulated, NOT how a free market would behave.

Yet others are concerned that the price of gold has risen so far, so fast that a market bubble is forming – and bubbles can burst.

YET MORE BS!

The most important measure is relative to fair value. Yet instead, it suggests how far the price as risen and at what speed it has done so. As I've pointed out above, just to cover its monetary base, gold is still cheap.

It's similar to Doug Casey claiming buttcoins are money by listing all the features that money has to have. But he omitted the most important of all, which is that it has to be a store of value, which an imaginary coin can't possibly be. Doug Noland, meanwhile, lists buttcoin prices in the commodities category, despite it being impossible for imaginary coins to have any commodity at all.

Jon Mills, an industry expert at Morningstar, made headlines in March when he suggested the cost of an ounce of gold could drop to just $1,820 over the next few years.

His view was that as mining firms increased their production and more recycled gold entered the market, the supply would increase. At the same time central banks would ease off their buying spree, while other short-term pressures stimulating demand would subside, bringing prices down.

And the internet has resulted in many "experts" being denounced.

The rate of supply of gold has fallen in recent years from 1.7% to 1.6%. 30% of central banks have said they will increase their holdings of gold. Recycled gold is only a quarter of annual supply. And he forgot to mention space-aliens from the planet Zarg, which has an abundance of gold, making first contact. Since war criminal, Nixon, defaulted on gold in 1971, the price (in USD) has averaged almost 10% per annum and is guaranteed to do so until a gold standard is restored with a price that is FAR higher, because the whole idea of paper funny-money is that they devalue it by printing ever more of it out of thin-air.

"Investors considering investing in gold should do so as part of a diversified portfolio – they shouldn't put all their eggs in a golden basket."

Rubbish again! Whilst some claim the Shyster of Omaha said diversification is a good policy for the ignorant, one article claimed that what he actually said was, that for those who know what they're doing, diversification doesn't make sense.