/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56087827
>gold makes higher gains than silver does

Factually false whether one adjusts the numbers for inflation or not. Silver is much more volatile, but the spread between its lows and highs throughout the existence of the USD or over shorter-term bear/bull market cycles shows that it "makes higher gains" than gold ever has.

Through 1932, before FDR cucked our monetary system even further, 1 troy ounce of gold was worth $20.67 dollars. The average annual price for 1 troy ounce of silver was below $0.28 in 1932 (see pic), so the GSR was about 1:74. One could get silver for less than 35 cents per ounce as late as 1941 when gold was $35/oz, a GSR of 1:100.

Let's say you bought gold in 1932 at its absolute lowest price of 20.67/oz, and a lowly silver stacker bought his metal for over spot at a flat $0.28/oz at the same time. If you sold at the 1980 peak of $850/oz you would have enjoyed a tidy 41X return, but the 1980 peak of silver was $50.35/oz, yielding the poor silver stacker a 180X return. If you both held until 2011, gold's peak price was $1900 which would yield an impressive 92X, but even though silver's peak was lower at $49.50 it still smoked gold with a 176X return. If you and the silver stacker both bought your metals in 1941 instead of 1932, the relative disparity in potential gains between the metals would favor silver even more.

You may make the argument that gold is a more stable and steady store of value, but the biggest gains (or losses if you buy high) come from silver. Gold is an easier and more straightforward choice for midwits and normoids who might otherwise get burned by silver's volatility and physical premiums, but if you understand silver and how to stack it right the gains can be much better.