In the second part of his series on gold, Brett Arends reveals that he's a gold skeptic. He and his crowd evidently don't find much use for gold, one item which the relativism custom seems to have missed. [For some reason, I can hear the echoes of Bill Buckley's ghost telling us pornography has no intrinsic value. I'll leave it to you to guess who would tell us television "has no intrinsic value."] He makes the point that investment demand, which he inevitably calls "hoarding," is the main factor behind gold's rise. In his capstone, perhaps inevitably, he compares gold's rise to a Ponzi scheme.
What to say? According to the reports I've read, gold would go down to $800 or so if the investment demand winds up being ephemeral. Last I checked, a Ponzi scheme's securities goes down to $000 once the buying stops. The cheques bounce, in other words. Gold isn't a liability, so it's hard to see why a one-ounce gold coin would bounce except physically.