Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Blaubart, post: 2111819, member: 37498&quot;]I think this is why we are still having this discussion.&nbsp; I am not trying to &quot;make the case for gold over stocks...&quot;.&nbsp; I am saying that the degree of performance difference between the two noted by Jeremy Siegel is questionable at best and that the author of the article seems to be highly biased against gold.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have read parts of his book.&nbsp; I don&#039;t care to read the entire book.</p><p><br /></p><p>I did see the chart you posted that covers the past 144 years and as I noted previously, those returns are for the ENTIRE market.&nbsp; Owning a diversified portfolio of stocks 200 years ago was not possible for 99.99% of Americans, so I don&#039;t know why anyone would even consider it in such an analysis.&nbsp; I&#039;d also like to see the raw data behind the chart, because it is my understanding that the average returns of the market as a whole have been closer to 8 or 9 percent, and that only small business stocks have averaged as high as 11 percent.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Unquestionably more than the number of people who could afford to own stock in 1814.</p><p><br /></p><p>You keep saying &quot;his results are unimpeachable&quot;.&nbsp; I have to wonder if you even understand the term:</p><p><br /></p><p>Unimpeachable: Not able to be doubted, questioned, or criticized.</p><p><br /></p><p>I doubt the validity of his research as his results are questionable, and I will criticize them all day long.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, as I have acknowledged all along, US stocks have always performed better than precious metals in the long run.&nbsp; So I don&#039;t think his results are impeachable to the extent that he ranked them incorrectly.</p><p><br /></p><p>How about this as an example:</p><p><br /></p><p>One person makes an assertion that motorcycles use less fuel to transport people than SUV&#039;s.&nbsp; They base their numbers on transporting one person, but they don&#039;t expressly disclose that.&nbsp; As such, they make the claim that motorcycles are 400% more fuel efficient than SUV&#039;s.</p><p><br /></p><p>Someone else comes along and questions those numbers.&nbsp; Maybe they know the average passenger count in an SUV is 2, and for motorcycles it&#039;s only 1.&nbsp; So they figure a calculation of fuel efficiency should take that into consideration, since the efficiency of transporting people is what is being measured.&nbsp; Their assertion is that motorcycles are only 200% more efficient than SUV&#039;s.</p><p><br /></p><p>A third person may come along and note that SUV&#039;s can transport up to 8 people, and as such are actually more fuel efficient than motorcycles at transporting people.</p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps the first person is highly biased against SUV&#039;s.&nbsp; Perhaps he just wanted to compare the vehicles without regard to the number of people transported.&nbsp; The second person doesn&#039;t question the fact that motorcycles can indeed be more efficient than SUV&#039;s, but thinks the difference between 400% and 200% percent is significant and worth mentioning.&nbsp; The third person is being unreasonable because transporting 8 people in an SUV is by far the exception, not the norm.</p><p><br /></p><p>The same is true with the case we&#039;ve been discussing.&nbsp; Yes, fees and taxes are relevant.&nbsp; As is the fact that 99.99% of people couldn&#039;t afford to own stock 200 years ago, much less a diversified portfolio that would mirror the performance of the entire market.[/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