11 Comments
May 31Liked by Global Markets Investor

LOL not even close!

Expand full comment
Jun 4Liked by Global Markets Investor

I suspect the results would be different if you accounted for home sizes which have expanded dramatically even since the 50’s.

No claim to accuracy on this article, but it does suggest those price changes roughly correspond with size changes.

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/05/25/the-size-of-a-home-the-year-you-were-born/

Expand full comment
author

Your point is valid but the analysis already takes that into account.

Case-Shiller Home Price (real estate) index adjusts the prices for size and quality of houses

Expand full comment
Jun 4Liked by Global Markets Investor

Thanks for that. I wasn’t aware Shiller is adjusting for size and quality. It’s funny what you miss. How did you work out that adjustment for house prices in the 20’s pre-Shiller?

Expand full comment
author

Longtermtrends did, they explain methodology there:

https://www.longtermtrends.net/real-estate-gold-ratio/

Expand full comment
Jun 4Liked by Global Markets Investor

Thanks I’ll check it out

Expand full comment
Jun 1Liked by Global Markets Investor

It os the Same in Most things you might want buy, car, good, land and so on

Expand full comment
author

Correct, that's the whole point:)

Expand full comment

Do you have a LinkedIn page? I’d love to share this article on Linkedin

Expand full comment
author

I do not have it yet. But it is a great idea to create one. Nevertheless, you can put the article's link out there on your feed anyway.

Expand full comment

Picking two random points in time doesn’t prove anything. Between 1982 and 2005 this kind of “value preservation” didn’t work out. And I doubt you’ll get the chance to use your 10kg of gold to buy a house a hundred years from now.

Expand full comment