Why is gold considered an inflation hedge?

People advocating for gold always points out to gold's ability to maintain purchasing power over "5000 years" and i see no evidence of this.

If you look at this article https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/worth-purchasing-power-ancient-coins/ at section Soldier's pay " Another way of thinking about the labor equivalent of ancient coins is soldier’s pay – one of the most important items in the budget of ancient empires. In the fourth century BCE, Greek hoplites (armored infantry) typically received a drachma per day (sometimes supplemented by another drachma to pay for a servant while on campaign)[9]. Computed as an annual salary, this represents about 1,540 grams of silver or, converted into gold at the typical ancient 15:1 rate, 103 g of gold (about three-and-a-third troy ounces).

Roman soldiers were paid 225 denarii per year, beginning in the first century BCE and continuing until the reign of the emperor Domitian (ruled 81-96 CE), who raised the rate to 300 denarii. That would represent about 972 grams of silver or 64.8 grams of gold (a bit over two troy ounces).

Now consider a modern soldier’s pay. A US Army E-2 with less than two years service earns a base pay of $20,808[10]. That would buy over 40 kilograms of silver, or about 555 grams (18.2 troy ounces) of gold at current rates. So in terms of the gold standard, Americans value a foot soldier more than five times as highly as ancient Greeks, and more than eight times as much as ancient Romans did."

If gold was really an inflation hedge shouldnt 103g of gold should be enough for a years wage? I am really confused by this claim and even if i wanted to diversity it wouldnt be for such a shitty thing that already lost 99.99% of its value.

submitted by /u/voodoofat
[link] [comments]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *