Lots of people touting this notion. However... from the 2007 top to the bottom of the decline... 1. Gold lost ~ 33% 2. Gold miner stocks lost ~ 80% Some say, "it will be different this time". Will it? FWIW....
Yeah, well... Cramer doesn't know "come here from sick' em". He hasn't made a nickel since his wife made his stock picks. (JK... just being a little bitchy... since I one time queried him about something, and he suggested I "take a pill" )
Antibiotics, seeds, bullets and having several of same guns so as to be able to interchange if damaged to one.
Read "When Money Dies" by Adam Fergusson. It's up-to one's world view, if one believes there is another WWII type of event on the horizon that will disrupt the world for a sustained period of time and weak central authority then gold makes sense otherwise it's a waste IE it has not intrinsic value; doesn't pay dividends/ interest, if you were to buy a substantial amount you'll have to pay for it to be stored etc.. During the recent credit crisis we did have disruption but not weak central authority.
When reading the thread title, I was going to answer no and point to the same facts that you pointed to. lol Only people who believe that gold is some sort of safe haven during times of economic crisis are those who sell gold. If someone is worried about some sort of economic apocalypse food guns/ammo is what you need to be focused on.
A WWII type event will likely render the northern hemisphere uninhabitable. If you are still alive after such an event, fresh water, food and a dependable tribe to help you ward off the raiders that just showed up at your door are more important than gold.
When it's REALLY REALLY REALLY crashed, maybe but when it's just minor corrections here and there, no. I find gold doesn't coincide perfectly with the market. Sometimes when the market is dropping, it drops too.