Most of the goldbugs are old, and have an old-fashion mindset, they hate tech stuff. And bitcoin would be "complicated" to them, not to mention that it is a "Ponzi scheme" or a "scam" in their eyes. Only a true goldbug would be able to convince other goldbugs that bitcoin is not like what they think it is, but its something else.
Its possible to be both. Gold is only something used as a counter balance, so goldbug to me would mean someone who holds far too much. I'd say about 1% is fine for most people as often the actual wealth people have to lay away for ten years is tiny. Thats the time scale for gold really, it'd be more relevant stated as a kind of cash hold in a pension.
The QE programs are tied to pension funds owned by government. So anyone reliant on that could get a horrible shock one day, hence gold would qualify as a non parallel asset neither dollar nor bond. Forget price, in risk terms its positive to a portfolio
I agree the bugs overlook the ideas that BTC enables and its a great shame. Some compromise by both sides would be best, but thats the idea of a goldbug I guess
Peter Schiff's entire business is based on him convincing others about gold as a good long term investment
I dont think he'd agree with that wording. Gold gives no yield, in purely negative terms its avoiding investment risk by non involvement. Also theres no returns on the capital, if anything storage has a % cost to it. Even the actual price appreciation is inverse to dollar failings which are substantial and without end.
Investment would only qualify when taking part in mining operations and that is often quite risky. A good mine will operate many hedges to its costs even then they are often encountering many problems with financing as operations take a decade to establish usually.
The story for schiff is more complicated then just gold, he is mostly an investment manager so he is competing for pensions funds and the like. Plain gold is a low margin business as its quite simple, not profitable to hawk