if now, with a fiat currency, there have been many wars fueled by the interest in securing important resources, such as oil, in foreign territories , imagine what would happen when currency would be backed by gold and more than 50% of gold is located in those two countries... i just cant see USA or Euro zone or Japan agreeing to that, unless, of course, they wanted to commit Harakiri.
I cannot seriously claim to have the answers. Wealth always attracts too much attention and envy. All manners of ores - iron, copper, anything that shines are valuable. I think one reason why Africa does not have stability may be their wealths attracting all manner of internal and external warlords - and war is the greatest way towards poverty. Vietnam now has stability as rice fields don't attract much attention - you would be loaded with hard labor! Who knows gold and silver may still be best - you have to fight like hell to lay hands on money which is infinitely more difficult than type like hell ! Difficult to answer about whether USA or Euro zone or Japan agreeing. Japanese finally agree if pressed hard. USA and Eurozone already have a lot of their reserves in gold. In an actual implementation of a gold standard, debts have to be settled and above ground gold may be re-distributed somehow. Then - Does not negotiation work?
Assume gold was $300 in 2003. Which of the two statements is more correct : 1) The (obvious) time to buy gold was 10 years back, not now. 2) Now is the (obvious) time to buy gold, not 10 years back. Some people here ridicule Jim Rogers for some reasons. But from what was quoted he said, he seems sane. I remember reading somewhere that he said something like "there is no such a thing as an obvious fact or truth". A "teacher" (not W. Buffet... great?) was in my town probably to conduct lectures and the local paper published some comments by him. He commented how ignorant people could be as a reporter recently asked him if it was a good time to buy gold. He said something like - "It is obvious the time to buy gold was 10 years back when gold was $300/oz, not now" - I am certain with the word "obvious". Hence my question.
The correct answer is, that 20-20 hindsight has absolutely no value. The market determines prices. Predictions such as yours only have value if you accidentally become somewhat right. Then you will crow. But if wrong, you will keep silent. That is why psychics are ignored. They make 50 predictions, 1 sort of comes right, and they do not talk about the 49 wrong predictions.
If you study the evolution of modern economics and currencies you will quickly realize it is assured Gold will not become a currency, short of something unexpected like a coast to coast meltdown of all the nuclear reactors in the US.
The question I pose is an economics question (not exact science) which asks for just an analysis with reasons - no one guarantees the future in economic predictions. Your luck seems to meet only with psychics who cannot see into the future, it is either :- 1) it is called hard luck (slang in some country) 2) someone who cannot see into the future is not a psychic. Which of the above is more correct?
I think your type of scholastic approach is biased. You only choose a time frame that favors the type of result you hold dear to. "modern economics and currencies" may justify your conclusion, but it comes from restricting things to what is most recently experienced. Such "inside-the-box" mentality will often conclude things like "Gold has risen 300% - it is now too high". People sometimes forget the "not-so-obvious" - that what goes up may not come down. Many of Dubai's sand castles go up and don't come down even with foreclosure. A satellite that is sent up and then comes back right to its launch pad is not praised for its accuracy. A more serious answer is that it seems very unlikely "based on recent (bad) experience".
Gold (bullion, not stock) will outlive the US currency, and continue outperforming the US currency, until I cash my gold out... but never again into a depreciating asset like US currency.