The guys who got all predictions of recession wrong, the housing market oh so wrong... oh hell, these guys have laughed at Peter Schiff every time he tells them what is going to happen... and then when it happens almost exactly as he predicted... they ignore him or claim it was a fluke. These are the people you trust to tell you why selling the gold (which very likely isn't even there any longer) is a bad idea? I've heard that more times than I care to count, and as much as I suspect that it is true, is it also not possible there is more in there than "they" want to admit too? Their concept of economics is so horribly wrong that they can't even understand how government interference distorts economic trends so bad that bad business practices are elevated rather than weeded out by natural economic processes like bankruptcy. I disagree when it comes to the left. I believe the leftist elite is accutely aware of how damaging their policies are, and that theirintention is to do as much damage as possible.
First, our currency is not based on gold, silver or any commodity. It hasn't been since Nixon took us off the gold standard. It should be based on something tangible. Basing it on a bucket of commodities would be the best if that is the route you choose. Keeping the gold, silver, platinum, palladium and more should be left to individual banks.
OK, I can agree on that premise, but what if those commodities $h!t the bed after a huge reserve of it is mined and/or sold? Then your assests are compromised.
Second, currency is not gold, and gold is not needed for currency to properly operate. Two separate times in our history, we've had fiat currencies without a central bank (i.e. no Fed) and if properly managed, they hold their value quite well. All currency is, is an agreed upon medium of exchange in place of barter. This way, farmers can acquire an equivalent to their goods in the form of money, which can be carried in their pockets to be exchanged at a later date for goods of an agreed upon equivalent value. At no time did we need gold for this process. Wheat was exchanged for money, which was then in turn exchanged for milk, fish, a car or even gold if a person so wanted. In all of these exchanges, precious metals were not needed in this transaction. What this does indicate however is that if a currency is not properly managed (by our Congress, not by some private banksters), we'll have serious inflation problems which will devalue the currency in everyone's possession. Plus, our government has been convincing us for years that saving the medium of exchange was a good idea because fractional reserve banking meant that individuals would earn interest on their money. The serious flaw in this method was that the devaluation of the money was far more deleterious to the person's overall wealth than was the gain in interest on that money... so in spite of the interest, their wealth is depleted, not increased. In this scenario, had these people purchased gold at one ounce per month since 1970 when we went off the gold standard, they would have spent approximately 4200 dollars on 120 ounces of gold during the 70s, 28,200 on 120 ounces of gold in the 80s, 48,000 on 120 ounces of gold in the 90s, and approximately 125,000 dollars on 120 ounces of gold in the 2000s. Total amount spent by the individual would have been $205,000.00 US dollars in currency... and the total value of the gold they'd own in 2011 would be around $700,000.00 US dollars. What savings account could do that? But the gold in the hands of government has done nothing for the people. Not a damn thing.