Well, it depends really: companies whose operations are mostly outside the US whilst being listed in USD in US stockmarkets will see their stockprice go up in dollars is there’s a run on the dollar, not because their value went up but because each dollar is worth less.

So such stocks will actually hold a lot more of their value than it would if that money was held directly in dollars.

PS: I actually have a “funny” Brexit story around this - back when the Leave Referendum won Brexiters (the British MAGA, and as equally well informed as the American version) were celebrating how the UK stockmarket indices went up in value with the Leave Referendum result of Leave. However those indices were only up in pounds and down if quoted in any other currency than the British Pound, because what had happened was that the pound tanked about 20% following the Referendum result so naturaly values for companies with extensive international operations translated to more money in british pounds.

The size of $500 worth of gold - about 3.5g - is a small coin or a thin gold ring.

(Thinking of it, it’s actually funny that we’re back to the times of being able to buy a house with a bag of gold coins)

Regular people definitelly buy gold in physical form because it’s such a concentrated form of storing wealth, though in the West this was a lot more common in the old days and currently is a lot more common in countries like China and India.

Oh, and if you buy gold certificates and the certificate issuer goes bankrupt (like so many companies go during Economic Crashes and Depressions), then in the eyes of the law that gold is not yours and you’re just another creditor of the assets of that company, so forget all about getting most of the value of that gold back: you might want to reconsider gold certificates for value safe-keeping outside of the dollar in case of a major economic crash in the US since if the gold isn’t actually in a legal structure were you own it (i.e. you legally have direct ownership of a chunk of gold and pay somebody to store it or store it yourself), you remain totally exposed to whatever economic upheavals happen where that company is based.

Yeah, a sudden artificial scarcity of gold because the US government is witholding other people’s gold isn’t going to make the price fall, quite the contrary.

That said, best not to invest in Gold that’s physically stored in the US be it directly (you own it and it’s in a US location) or indirectly (such as Gold ETFs whose physical Gold is stored in the US).

Silver spent most of the last 15 years going nowhere, whilst gold has been steadily creeping up (though accelerating in the last 3 or 4 years).

If you look at historical prices, in 20 years gold went up around 9x in dollar terms whilst silver went up 11x, which is not that much of a difference, but if you look at the silver price in the beginning of 2025 it was only about 4x from the beginning of that 20 year range, so most of the growth has happened just in this one year to the point that the peak from 2011 was only surpassed in September 2025 whilst gold passed its 2011 peak in 2020.

All this to say that IMHO Silver price growth just seems to be much more concentrated in time than Gold’s, but in a longer timeframe it doesn’t really add to a much bigger price increase.

Gold is for all effects and purposes the oldest currency around, mainly because it has been exactly that for millenia and still today, has very little industrial use and instead is mainly used for safekeep of value and decorative purposes (such as jewelery).

Comparied to common currencies of the present age (called fiat currencies because they’re issued by states and their value is not inherent to the currency - i.e. not based on the value of the material of the cash - but rather it’s backed by trust on the issuing government) gold and its value is not under control of any one government hence doesn’t really suffer much from the policies in any one country and has a natural inflation rate of around 2% due to mining (i.e. the amount of mined gold increases by around 2% of the total per year).

So when trust in governments and the economies they manage falls, gold is a natural safe haven asset just like the currency of a different country would be, only gold’s safe haven properties also work when the mistrust is more generalized globally (multiple governments or of governments whose policies have a significant global impact) whilst that doesn’t apply for other fiat currencies. A simple example: if you move from the dollar to the euro and the dollar crashes, the euro will also be somewhat impacted by the consequence of that crash whilst gold would not and if, worse, the societal and political problems causing said crash of the dollar were alse present in the eurozone (which they are, by the way, just less so) there might also be an euro crash for similar reasons and gold would still remain unnafected*

(* actually that’s not quite so because as seen during the 2008 Crash there are price pressures on gold due to on one side people more desperatelly trying to move into it to save their wealth from the crash hence pushing prices up and on the other hand people selling gold to pay for financial commitments they have that cannot be served by other assets that have crashed in value - for example somebody who has stocks and gold and has to pay a loan, during a crash/depression might have to pull money out of gold to pay the loan because the value of the stocks has crashed).

On the other hand, the value of all the gold ever mined in the world is “only” around $28 trillion whilst the US debt alone is $38 trillion, so there’s not enough gold for even just holders of US treasuries to take refuge in it, at least not at the current gold price.

Then again, the more people who take refuse in gold, the more its price goes up - a mere year ago the value of all the gold ever mined in the World would only be around $17.5 trillion - which adds further to the expectation that a dollar crash would push gold prices up massivelly, in multiple currencies rather than just dollars.

Yeah, the malaise vastly predates Brexit and goes all the way back to Thatcher’s policies, such as the selling of public housing and policies to make it harder for councils to build more, privatisation of a lot of public services especially natural monopolies such as water supply and rail, deregulating Finance and betting on it for growth in Britain, Press deregulation and concentration, and so on.

Then neoliberal governments of both the Tory and New Labor persuasion just kept and even doubled down on such policies (who can forget Thatcher’s “greatest achievement”, Tony Blair).

Then the 2008 Crash hit the UK hard thanks to the deregulation of Finance and excessive size of it as part of the British Economy (17% of it at the time of the Crash, if I remember it correctly) with some extra fueling from a housing bubble that had been inflated since Thatcher’s days (which now is even worse).

Then the way that was handled was to save Asset Owners and make workers pay for it, exploding inequality (if I remember it correctly even already in 2015 real incomes for the bottom 90% if the population were falling at around 1% per year, whilst for the top 10% of the population they went up 23%) and hence poverty.

Meawhile paid up politicians, Press (remember Thatcher’s deregulation of the Press) and Think Tanks spread far-right ideas such as ultra-nationalism and blaming foreigners (especially immigrants, but also “the EU”) for the pain people were feeling as consequences of the post-Crash policies of their very own, 100% local, politicians.

Then that cristalized in the knee-jerk reaction against foreigners called Brexit (which, mind you, was still a less damaging far-right ultra-nationalist knee-jerk than the historically more comon one of “starting a war against some random foreign country”).

And now here we are with Britain pretty much morphed in to a posh version of a Fascist country.

Well, yeah, it was pretty obvious that Trump did not control Venezuela since he has no troops on the ground.

He’s just been threathening the current Venezuelan leadership with personally getting the same fate as Maduro, but that’s not at all the same as controlling the actual country.

No amount of struting like some prized rooster by Trump on this (like he does for just about everything just before he TACOes) alters the reality that a special ops kidnapping isn’t anywhere near the same level of military commitment as an invasion and at most will deliver chaos rather than control.

I lived in the UK as an EU immigrant before Brexit and I can tell you that they were already well on their way before that.

Just go have a look at the Stasi-like civil society done in the UK as shown by the Snowden Revelations: it was actually worse than the US and, unlike in the US, none of it was rolled-back in the UK and instead new laws were passed to make the whole thing retroactivelly legal.

This is far from the only way in which Britain hasn’t really been a proper Democratic nation for quite a while (for example, did you know they have a Press Censorship system called “D-Notices” or that there is not right to legal counsel when interrogated at a border crossing?).

Brexit was not the cause of Britain’s increased authoritarianism, it was a consequence of it (though indirectly, due to things like Press ownership concentration, the BBC to quite an extend a Propaganda outlet for the party in government and the pain of the Austerity that was chosen in the aftermath of of the 2008 Crash as a way to pay for the costs of saving the wealth of the rich and the bonuses of bankers).

It’s just that unlike in places like the US or Hungary, the culture of the elites gives a huge importance to “keeping appearences” (hence the “English gentleman” stereotype, which at least nowadays is all about how one presents oneself and not at all about morals, ethics or honor) so you get a posh kind of Fascist rather than the raging strongman populist style of fascist you get in other countries. Also Britain is far more likely to hide the use of force for oppression with “It’s the Law” and “Proper procedure” than the others - again a form of managing appearances.

A second parliamentary chamber whose members are not elected but instead get their seats by being nominated for life for one by a sitting government or inheriting it.

There goes a man who knows who butters his bread and has no problems in getting his nose brown…

Personally, I think this is more appropriate.

Also there are generaly very specific requirements on how things are made for them to fall under a Protected Origin, so for example in the age when pretty much all industrially made smoked meats are filled with nitrites and other preservatives, Parma Ham is literally still only made with pork meat and salt, nothing else (so the quality is far greater than the modern version of similar products which do not have that Protected Origin, many of which even have chemicals added to them to “accelerate the cure” so that they can be made faster).

Another example: Manchego Cheese isn’t just cheese made in specific area of Spain, it’s actually has to be made in a certain way using the milk of a specific breed of sheep called Manchega (hence the name of the cheese).

Doubt it.

They’re not actually handy to put a grilled beef patty inside, since they size is all wrong and they get soaked and mushy with the juices.

The Dollar went down.

Convert that S&P 500 to Yuan and it’s a whole different picture.

There’s a lot of Economics in Economics.

For example Behavioral Economics actually conducts experiments to determine how people tend to react to various situations (for example, they’ve actually discovered that at least for some forms of medicine the price when told to the patient can influence how well it works, effectively having a placebo and even a nocebo effect?), so it’s pretty similar to Sciences such as Physics or Chemistry.

The rest of Economics, not really, especially the stuff directly and indirectly linked to political decision making (so, Central Bank stuff, Think Tanks, Financial Press, “Economists” in the mainstream Press) - that shit is Politics using Mathematics as a Smoke & Mirrors to make the policy-supporting unsupported and unproven claims look like they’re actually the outcome of a rigorous scientific process.

The situation is so hilariously bad that when a guy from Behavioral Economics - Richard Thaler - finally got an Economics “Nobel” Prize (which is not a prize instituted by Alfred Nobel but actually a prize from the Swedish Central Bank “in honor of Alfred Nobel” which they convinced the Nobel Committee to endorse) they didn’t give it to him for his edifice of work that disproves that real humans behave as the theoretical homo economicus human model that supports pretty much the entire mathematical edifice for Free Market Theory, but instead they gave it to him for just his work on Nudge Theory which is all about how to influence people in aggregate to do more of what people in power want (so stuff like making the desired behavior - say, “donate organs when you die” - be opt out rather than opt in to get a higher percentage of people with that behavior).

All this to say that whilst most of Economics in the present era is a Shit Show of Politics passing itself as a Science, a little bit of it is actually Science, though that little bit is almost never the stuff the “Economists” in panels in the News or in Central Banks talk about to the public or politicians.

I couldn’t agree more and had exact the same experience.

In my case I was actually in the Finance Industry when the 2008 Crash happenned and seeing what was done (the state unconditional saving Asset Owners by sacrificing the rest, in constrast with the whole Free Market stuff I had been reading on The Economist for almost a decade) and their take on it, really opened my eyes to the complete total self-serving bullshit of not just The Economist but also the whole edifice of Free Market Economics (a skepticism further boosted by me actually starting to learn Economics - especially Behavioral Economics since it’s the only “Mainly Science rather than Politics” part of it and my background is party in Physics - and deepening my understanding of the Finance Industry as I tried to figure out the Why and How of the Crash).

That shit is Politics hidden behind a veil of Mathematics purposelly misused in a way eerily similar to how I saw pricing for over the counter derivatives being done in Finance: designing models so that they yield the desired results under certain conditions and further controlling their output by feeding them with cherry picked inputs and then presenting the output of the models as “Mathematical proof” that things are as as you say they are, so basically circular logic with some complex Mathematics in the middle to hide their true nature as unsupported claims.

It’s pretty insidious Fake Science stuff if you don’t have a strong background in Science and access to the right information to pierce through it.

Well, after he got a Nobel Peace Prize, it makes sense that he moves onwards towards his next great wish: King Of The World.

Given Trump’s relation with reality and mental age, the formalism are irrelevant: in his mind if he has the shinny thing then the prize is his.

Notice how the EU just succumbed to lobbying from part of the European Auto Industry and cancelled the whole “ICE car sales ban from 2035” having even before that put extra tariffs on EV cars from China (so, not quite as extreme as the US, but none the less a caving to EU auto makers) to help big auto makers in Europe who refuse to transition to EVs (and this at a time where Diesel polution kills about 10,000 people a year in the EU, so they’re literally putting the interests of large auto makers over the lives of people).

You know what they could’ve done instead?

Subsidies for European auto manufactures with a large percentage of EV car sales relative to ICE cars (which, if high enough would mean lots of money for subsidizing smaller companies to grow and replace the larger ones if the large makers don’t increase their EV sales rather than keeping on extracting juicy margings from ICE SUVs).

The problem in Europe is political capture by dinossaur businesses which would rather make believe the next great Tech Revolution - around Renewables - isn’t happening and have pretty much bought politicians to make sure Europeans and smaller European companies can’t easilly benefit from it.

Europe has the Tech capability to go there but the current political structure (late stage Neoliberal Capitalism) were politicians mainly represent large economic interests (not only above citizens but even above small and mid-size businesses) means that at best politicians simply refuse to send serious money to forward-looking disruptive businesses or forcing the pricing-in of things like Environmental costs in products made by large companies, whilst at worst actually making laws to reduce everybody’s options to move away from buying the products of said large companies.

It might look as an economic and progress problem at first sight, but dive any further and you’ll see Economic options being shaped by Politics (in some cases simply by Politicians in Europe choosing “not to intervene in Markets” but only for markets dominated by big players, in other cases by making laws which de facto activelly obstruct adoption of improved Tech) and in turn Politics being shaped by Big Money.

I think the previous poster was absolutelly correct in their interpretation of the West’s problem in this as broader societal problems.

Mind you, I don’t even think that China’s political system is all that great - rather I think that in the present day the power structures in the West (more in the US, but also to quiet an extent in Europe) are actually hindering the moving forward even whilst there’s plenty of capability to do so (certainly in Europe which mainly has invested massivelly in things like Higher Education).

The US was already been past its peak as an Imperial Power since at least the 2008 Crash (though if you look at things like social mobility in the US, the seeds of it go all the way back to the 70s when the country started becoming ever less a “land of opportunity”), but Trump has definitelly accelerated the decay by a huge factor.

That said, at some point a far-right populist portraying himself as “man of the people” who will “bring back national greatness” like Trump getting power, is historically pretty common in nations which have reached a peak of great power and started decaying from there - in other words, if it wasn’t Trump, this stage of the circle of prosperity and decay would in the US have delivered power to some other similar character.