Thanks craft, wise worse from Aswath in the comments section of that article, recognising the reality of the situation:
My main issue with that article is twofold:
1. A lot of what he says applies equally to an ounce of gold as to money under the mattress. Which implies logically a definition of "saving", not "investing", after all the "real interest rate" is what you get for investing the money, not saving it in a shoebox. So why exactly is gold being held to the standard of investment, when it is (has and always will be) a "store of value" i.e. savings. Should it not be held up in comparison to other savings devices, such as holding a giant warehouse full of USD for 30Y?
2. All of the "valuation hypothesis" he chooses seem kind of fallacious to me since they are entirely US focused, yet obviously the number of USD that an ounce of gold can buy has been influenced more by global than local factors. Consider for example the USD was a promissory note to deliver a defined unit of gold to the holder, prior to the closing of the gold window. Holding USD in lieu of the physical did not protect from that event, yet he did not examine owning golds role as a hedge against such events (i.e. specifically hyperinflation and/or currency default).
I thought your points were covered in the 'Gold as Insurance' section and the bottom line – well that’s how I read it and that was the most interesting part.
As an aside – If Gold deserves a position in the portfolio as insurance then I see it as insurance against counterparty promise failure – therefore only physical does that job.
Not my preferred insurance but I see the reasoning.