> but really the average was quite stable from 1982 to 2004

It was falling at a stable pace for 20 years in nominal terms. I don’t see how can someone see anything else looking at the price chart.

And inflation was still 4-5% through the 80s and didn’t fall to 2% until 2000. So it was a horrible asset to hold.

Just buying government bonds in the 80s and 90s was a much better idea.

> It was falling at a stable pace for 20 years in nominal terms.

It was not. Look at the chart: https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-...

Between 1984 and 1996, 131 of the 156 months were within $50 of the average nominal price, and the lowest point, December 1984, was only $89 below the average. In particular from 1993 to 1996 the price was never more than $10 off average. If you bought gold in July 1979, which was an all time high at the time, the nominal value of your gold never decreased.

Looking at the inflation adjusted numbers there is much more volatility, but again, the value of gold in Jan 1989 was the same as the value of gold in Jan 1979. If you happened to buy gold during its peak in Jan 1980, you wouldn't see an inflation adjusted profit until October 2024.

Gold is not generally a good asset to hold to make money, but that's not what is under discussion here. The question is can the value of gold be used as a proxy for inflation. Gold going up is like smelling smoke - you know there is a fire. I am not arguing that inhaling large quantities of smoke is the best way to protect yourself during a fire.