Jim Grant, a "respected Wall Street Publisher" (interesting credential) noted that the argument for gold begins with its role as the original money. From NPR:"People recognize it as such. You don't need a Ph.D. in economics to have it explained to you. Gold is sort of the Muhammad Ali of monetary substances; the world over, you look at it, you know what it is," Grant says.Pegging the dollar to gold would limit inflation, he says, and force greater fiscal constraints on governments because they couldn't simply print money to pay their debts or bail out bankers.And, he says, it would bring the kind of stability to the monetary system that it had a hundred years ago.Read that last sentence again, and when after you fall out of your chair from laughing, you may understand why Ron Paul followers are total losers.
By carefully choosing your start and endpoints, you can make any "investment" look swell, to the plebes. For example, look how great Bitcoin is doing today:
People don't see the gold bubble of 1981 as being significant, as in a chart from 1975 to today, it looks pretty small. But again, this is just a scaling effect. That "small" bubble was huge back then, when the dollar was worth more. In fact, if you scaled the two bubbles - 1981 and today - to adjust for inflation, you would get the same exact shape.