Faber: Gold a better buy than at $300/oz.

Dr. Marc Faber has been in the news a lot lately, asked repeatedly about the price of gold, and, while there was some confusion about his outlook last week as noted here (Mac Slavo at SHTFPlan going so far as to contact the good doctor to clarify his views and documenting the results here), the preponderance of recent reports point to a very bullish Faber.

There is a growing collection of related YouTube clips submitted in just the past few days and, again, the clear message is that he thinks gold is going higher, not lower. This story at LiveMint is typical of what's been published recently but, upon closer examination, it seems to me that the second comment below is more interesting than the now well known first.

What about gold?

I don’t think that you’ll see gold below $1,000 per ounce probably ever again. So I’m quite positive.

Maybe, gold at this level is a better buy than it was at $300 per ounce in 2001.

At first glance, the idea that gold priced at over $1,100 an ounce is "a better buy" than when the metal traded at about a quarter of that price seems preposterous. But, when you think about it just a little bit (i.e., what constitutes a "better buy" and how the fundamental factors have now swung so decidedly in gold's favor), maybe it isn't a crazy idea at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in another eight years - in 2017 - the yellow metal fetches $5,000 an ounce or more which, by my math, would make it a better buy. Gold may not rise as much against other currencies, but, after almost a decade of trillion dollar deficits, that almost seems like a slam dunk when the measuring stick is the U.S. dollar.