"A Contrarian's Dilemma" points out that central banks have been buying gold and yet it still comprises small fractions of their reserves, also that gold supplies are not growing appreciably, due to the high cost of producing the metal. By contrast, he says, paper money is cheap and easy to make, a fact that economic and political leaders around the world have been taking advantage of as they try to shore up the battered financial system.
Purchases by central banks are not so encouraging. If they don't have a lot of gold on hand, it's because they sold so much of it in the 1990s, just in time to miss a huge rally.
Sure, their selling pushed the price down, helping to form the bottom, but they could have drip-fed their supply into the market and minimized the impact. It's hard to have faith in the judgment of institutions buying for $1,000 or more the same thing they sold not that long ago for less than $300.
The thing is, they were right all through the 1980s and 1990s. All it took was for government leaders to be slightly less inept and intrusive for gold to drop out of sight and stay there. If that happens again - a tall order, maybe, but it's not as if expectations for bold, brilliant leadership are all that high - then gold could be headed for two more decades in the wilderness.
The report offers another excellent talking point for the opposite side of the debate. At a buck a point the Dow Jones industrial average bought 40 ounces of gold a decade ago; these days it buys less than 10 ounces.
Hathaway also recalls the certainty with which investors dismissed gold's prospects; no one wanted it at $250. That's far from the case today, when the public clamors for the stuff at well over four times that amount.
If you insist on investing in gold at these levels, his fund is an excellent vehicle for it. But gold still seems like more of a sell than a buy at these prices.