Gold has been used as a reliable currency for over 4,000 years

The argument

Gold has been the worldwide currency for thousands of years. Unlike today's paper money, gold has an intrinsic value of its own. It is a viable medium of exchange in today's world and always will be one. If one were to take a look into history, they would realize that almost no empire used any form of currency apart from gold or silver. There were no substitutes for these metals due to their inherent value. Gold is undeniably a good investment, even in today's society, because it is what economies and societies fall back to when other currencies begin to fail. For example, between the years 1998 and 2008, the value of the dollar began to decline. Reasons such as trade deficits and an increase in the money supply were noted as the cause of this problem. This goes to show that even the strongest currency in the world can ultimately decline in value. Absolute trust can never be placed in man-made currencies. However, in the same span of time, the price of gold almost tripled. People began to realize the security behind investing in gold and as more and more people began to buy this precious metal, its value continued to increase. This correlation clearly shows that gold is the asset that people will ultimately fall back on. It has been the currency of the world and it will always be a form of security.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Simply because gold has been traditionally used does not mean that it is also a good investment. When countries such as America decided to remove themselves off the gold standard, they did it for a variety of reasons. They realized that without this gold standard, they can print enough money to cover the costs of wars or tumultuous times. As of 1971, America ended the gold standard and determined that the dollar is no longer linked to gold, silver, or any other asset. However, even today, the dollar remains one of the most reliable and secure currencies in the world. This goes to show that gold is not necessary for the success of a country or an economy.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Long use as money establishes that gold has properties suited to a monetary metal — durability, divisibility, scarcity — not that it is a good investment now. The premise also overstates the history, since silver, copper, bronze and commodity monies circulated widely alongside it, and the claim of 'intrinsic value' assumes what is in question: gold's price rests on what buyers will pay, which is what makes it volatile. [Rejecting P2] The dollar's decline over 1998–2008 is a selected window. Measured from its 1980 peak, gold lost most of its real value over the following two decades — a stretch longer than the one cited — so the same reasoning applied to a different starting point yields the opposite conclusion. [Rejecting P3] The argument's own explanation undercuts it: prices rose because more people bought, which describes a movement in demand rather than a store of value. Gold also produces no earnings, dividend or interest, so a holder's entire return depends on selling to someone paying more later, and it carries storage and insurance costs against that. [Rejecting C] The counter-argument on record notes that the major economies left the gold standard deliberately and that their currencies have functioned since without it, which tells against the premise that economies inevitably fall back on gold.