Skip to content

Additional resources for earning interest in gold

1 response to “Stocks Up and Yields Down, Gold and Silver Report 8 Oct 2017”

  1. The overall analysis here is excellent as always, thanks for writing it.

    Still, I am puzzled by the use of the terms “objective” and “subjective”, in the intro which seem to be used precisely backwards here.

    It was surprising to see that in a write up which is otherwise so carefully and thoroughly reasoned.

    For instance, the dollar going down can’t be “objectively” good or bad in a vacuum. It is objectively good for some and objectively bad for others, depending on their subjective preferences.

    Of course, there are many things we can “objectively” say about the dollar–such as its current price in fractions of gold grams, or that it is considered legal tender in the US, or the rate at which new ones are being created.

    But it can only be “objectively bad” at fulfilling some subjective preference–such as having a stable and predictable currency. (A very reasonable subjective preference to hold!)

    However, if one owes a lot of money and would like to pay it back in cheaper dollars, then the dollar going down is objectively *good* at fulfilling that subjective preference.

    Therefore, unless you are adding other qualifiers, whether the dollar going up or down is “good” is entirely subjective. It is good for some and bad for others.

    It is only in reference to a specific standard or goal, that it can be “objectively” good or bad. Without referring to some other standard, those words become subjective qualifiers.

    The same is true of gold: It is not objectively “good” in and of itself. It can be objectively good at helping to meet certain subjective values, or it can be *subjectively* considered a good thing to have in and of itself by a certain person.

    I think I may understand the confusion here: Just because a position is well-reasoned does not make it “objective”.

    It can still be subjective in that it appeals on some level to personal values and preferences rather than empirically verifiable claims.

    The error is most clear in this piece when it is argued that if we were speaking subjectively, “all” we could say is that the market price of gold is currently $xxxx. But that’s exactly backwards: This is an objective empirical statement, not a subjective statement of value or preference.

    Fortunately, the underlying point of the piece and of the exercise is clear enough to withstand these unconventional uses. But it could lead to issues in other discussions and in thinking reasonably on other related topics.

    Pardon the long reply, and I hope it’s not overly pedantic or nitpicky. It’s just such a foundational set of terms, and I’d like to flag this for your future consideration, as it may stop many otherwise receptive readers in their tracks.

    Thanks for hearing the critique, and please keep up the great work. It really is an excellent read aside from this issue, which nearly stoped me from finishing. So I may not be alone. Fortunately, I’m familiar with the great quality of your work and knew to stay for all the good stuff! :) So thank you for that.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?

Feel free to contribute!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Gold Outlook Report 2025