Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;beef1020, post: 2108837, member: 24544&quot;]I understand you have a point to prove, but I think you need to go back and read what I said, and what the author of the linked article said.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The 7% return on stocks was an <b>after </b>inflation return.&nbsp; It already took into consideration the effects of inflation.&nbsp; The article states:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;In his seminal book &quot;Stocks for the Long Run,&quot; renowned economics professor Jeremy Siegel looked at the long-term performance of various asset classes in terms of purchasing power --<b> their monetary wealth adjusted for the effect of inflation.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>With a $1 investment each in stocks, bonds, T-bills and gold, beginning in 1802 and ending in 2006, Siegel calculated what those assets would then be worth.</p><p><br /></p><p>Stocks were the big winners, growing the initial dollar investment into $755,163. Bonds and T-bills trailed dramatically, returning only $1,083 and $301 respectively. But the big surprise was in how badly gold fared during that time, only growing to $1.95.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Both the return to stock and the return to gold were adjusted for inflation in this analysis.&nbsp; It&#039;s an apples to apples comparison.&nbsp; Feel free to take issue with some other aspect of the analysis, I am sure there are counter-points to make, but how the inflation adjustment was done is doubtfully one of them.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in