Gold hits all time high

2025-09-2919:3590134goldprice.org

Where the world checks the gold price

Show article

GOLDPRICE.ORGprovides you with fast loading charts of the current gold price per ounce, gram and kilogram in 160 major currencies. We provide you with timely and accurate silver and gold price commentary, gold price history charts for the past 1 days, 3 days, 30 days, 60 days, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and up to 43 years. You can also find out where to buy gold coins from gold dealers at the best gold price.

Real time and historical prices.
Live Spot Gold and Spot Silver in Euro, Yen, AUD, CAD, GBP and CHF.
Spot Platinum and Spot Palladium.
US Dollar Index.
WTI Crude Oil Price.
All Major Currency Rates.
Technical Analysis Tools

USD - EUR - AUD - CAD - GBP - JPY
30 and 60 days, 6 months, 1 year.
2 years, 5 years, 10 years.
15 years, 20 years.
Up to 39 years.
Available in 50 Currencies.
Gold Silver Ratio.

How much is your gold worth?
How much was your gold worth when you bought it?
How much profit have you made on your gold?
How much is any gold coin worth in any currency?
All major exchange rates
How much is your scrap gold worth?

How much is any Karat of your gold jewelry worth?
What change should you give in gold coins?
How much gold can you buy with your currency?
How much is your gold worth in any currency?
Convert between ounces, grams and kilos
How much will you pay to buy or sell gold?

All charts from goldprice.org available on iPhone.
Live gold and silver price tickers in all national currencies.
Save your favorite charts and view in one convenient place.
Buy gold from a premier online gold bullion dealer.
Read the latest financial news impacting gold prices.

All charts from goldprice.org available on Android.
Live gold and silver price tickers in all national currencies.
Save your favorite charts and view in one convenient place.
Buy gold from a premier online gold bullion dealer.
Read the latest financial news impacting gold prices.

Read the original article

Comments

By paxys 2025-09-2920:096 reply

Gold, silver, stocks, real estate, Bitcoin, baseball cards, fine art, Rolexes - everything is trading at or near their all time highs. The value of the US dollar is simply going down.

By skybrian 2025-09-2920:181 reply

The art market doesn't seem to be doing well at all:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45175628

By throw0101c 2025-09-2921:32

Rolexes hit their all-time high in 2022:

* https://watchcharts.ca/watches/price_index

* https://watchcharts.ca/watches/brand_index/rolex

* https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/used-watch-market-prices-e...

>> The value of the US dollar is simply going down.

I wonder what could be causing nervousness in the USD regime…

By onlyrealcuzzo 2025-09-2920:193 reply

Fiat money is not going down as much as asset prices are going up, though.

So it's part of the story, money losing value in the real economy. That's been happening since moving off the gold standard at roughly similar rates.

There's something that happened during ZIRP & Negative Real Interest Rate Policies that completely divorced the value of money in the real economy from the value of assets & future cash flows, and even when interest rates became positive again, the trend appears to have continued.

Perhaps all investors just believe ZIRP & Negative Real Interest Rate Policies are coming back, maybe to even more negative real rates than ever before.

By tossandthrow 2025-09-2920:253 reply

> Fiat money is not going down as much as asset prices are going up, though.

How do you measure this? What is this claim founded in?

You could indeed say that inflation should be defined by the asset prices. This would couple fiat and asset prices definatorically.

By onlyrealcuzzo 2025-09-2920:291 reply

Because normal people mainly use money to pay rent and utilities and taxes and buy corn from the grocery store, not to buy future cash flows.

By Ancapistani 2025-09-2921:271 reply

At any given time, most of the money isn't in the hands of "normal people", though. It's in the hands of banks, states, and large companies.

By onlyrealcuzzo 2025-09-300:16

The amount of money isn't relevant. Money is fake.

The real economy isn't.

By jhrmnn 2025-09-2920:331 reply

I’m guessing what was meant is that the price of things that are to be invested in is growing wrt the price of things that are to be consumed. Which naively makes sense to me in an economy based on growth where the total consumption starts to stagnate—the surplus still has to go somewhere. Is it so or is reality more complicated than that?

By tossandthrow 2025-09-2920:37

I think this is a key observation.

Apparently consumables have become incredibly cheap.

But then again, consumables will like start to rise in price now people need more money to buy a house, etc.

You could also say that real salaries have gone down a lot, which is probably also true.

These effects have to go through very complex value chains.

By paulpauper 2025-09-2921:32

It makes more sense or is more plausible to say that asset prices are rising to hedge or tracking inflation, versus a falling dollar. I

By jack_h 2025-09-2920:502 reply

> There's something that happened during ZIRP & Negative Real Interest Rate Policies that completely divorced the value of money in the real economy from the value of assets & future cash flows

I’m not sure I follow. The USD is just a medium of exchange. 100% of the dollars commands 100% of the wealth of the economy. If you increase the number of dollars but the size of the economy itself doesn’t increase then the underlying prices would go up and the value of individual dollars would go down.

By rayiner 2025-09-2921:001 reply

That’s not accurate for two reasons. First, the dollar isn’t just a medium of exchange, but a medium for storing value since it’s the reserve currency. Second, a dollar can get spent multiple times so there isn’t a direct relationship with the amount of economic activity as you suggest.

By jack_h 2025-09-2922:231 reply

I don’t disagree with your first point, but your second point may have been a misunderstanding of what I said or I don’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not suggesting when you spend money it goes away and can’t be used again. I was more suggesting the M0/M1/M2 money supplies change in size which is distinct from GDP size, although I admit that is a simplification.

By rayiner 2025-09-2922:51

Gotcha. I thought you meant it was a 1:1 correlation. My mistake.

By throw0101c 2025-09-2921:371 reply

> If you increase the number of dollars but the size of the economy itself doesn’t increase then the underlying prices would go up and the value of individual dollars would go down.

Just looking the number of dollars, without looking at what they're doing, is like thinking you will gain weight because your fridge/pantry is stocked:

> But also – why do so many people insist that inflation is an increase in the money supply? This makes zero sense. Here’s why – our economy is mostly a credit based economy. So, if I take out a loan for $100,000 then the money supply has technically increased by $100,000. But what if I don’t actually tap that loan? What if I borrow the money because, for instance, house prices just went up 25% and I want to have some cash around for emergencies? This doesn’t tell us anything about prices, living standards or really anything. But this is what so much of the money supply represents – money that has been issued and is just sitting around unused. Why is this useful? It’s like calculating your weight changes by counting how much food you have in your refrigerator. No. That’s potential calories consumed and potential weight gain. The amount of food in your fridge tells you little about your future weight changes just like the amount of money in the economy tells us little about the actual price changes in the economy.

* https://www.pragcap.com/three-things-i-think-i-think-i-see-d...

Japan had an ever increasing money supply for decades and experience not just low inflation, but at times deflation:

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1680i

By jack_h 2025-09-2922:281 reply

I fully admit what I said was simplistic and not meant to indicate the true complexity of the system. I agree with everything you’ve posted as inflation is not immediate merely because the money exists. I was presenting a rough zeroth order approximation because I didn’t understand how the value of money could be completely divorced from assets/the economy.

By throw0101c 2025-09-2923:30

> I was presenting a rough zeroth order approximation because I didn’t understand how the value of money could be completely divorced from assets/the economy.

Money has no value except in what it can buy you, the most important of which are shelter, water, and food for survival. After that you get into what can help you achieve happiness / fulfillment.

As a percentage of household spending, food (even with recent risen prices) have never been lower:

* https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/yo...

and clothing:

* https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2006/may/wk5/art02.htm

* https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/as-a-share-of-household-spend...

We've never lived longer, with fewer diseases, and had an easier (and safer) time to travel.

Sadly shelter (especially if you want to buy) has gotten more expensive (at least in the Anglo-sphere), but that's more about things like zoning policy and such rather than money supply.

So what exactly has dropped in "value" in human life/lives with the increased amount of money that's supposedly bouncing around? When in human history have things been better? If you could jump in a time machine that goes 88 mph, what period of history would you rather be in to live your life?

By paxys 2025-09-2920:261 reply

> Fiat money is not going down as much as asset prices are going up, though.

I'm assuming you are referring to CPI, but that is just a single measure of inflation and serves a very specific purpose. One could argue that "real" inflation in fact is the US dollar's value relative to gold or other similar assets.

By onlyrealcuzzo 2025-09-2920:302 reply

If one was not someone who lived in the real economy and spent most of their money on things in the real economy, and instead was a billionaire, and spent most of their money buying future cash-flows, then sure.

By paxys 2025-09-2920:34

There are plenty of people in this economy who sit somewhere in between having to spend their entire paycheck on rent and groceries and deciding which one of their yachts to take on the next vacation. I'd wager most people reading this are in the middle category, and so deeper analysis on inflation and long-term stores of money is absolutely relevant.

By tossandthrow 2025-09-2920:41

This is an imprecise take, in particular due to one thing: Target return rate.

The rich people expect a return rate regardless of how expensive the asset was, and eventually the asset will have to give that. This transaltes into more expensive consumables, rents, etc. Ie, Asset prices are a part of the real economy.

By lottin 2025-09-2920:231 reply

As expected. This is why we don't use nominal dollars for measuring changes in prices over long time periods. It's meaningless.

By zahlman 2025-09-2920:38

Assets like gold are also reaching new highs in real terms, which is giving people reason to be skeptical of the adjustments made for inflation.

But really none of it is as objective as it tries to pretend to be.

By MichaelDickens 2025-09-2920:19

Those things are trading high relative to basic goods like food and clothing, so you can't explain it away as inflation.

By pizlonator 2025-09-2920:191 reply

Bingo

So then the question is - how long can this continue before something snaps

By MountDoom 2025-09-2920:323 reply

Pretty long, given that the US had a fully-fiat currency for 50+ years, and many European countries had it for longer than that. Per CPI, your dollar is worth 8x less than what it was worth in 1970.

This, in itself, doesn't mean anything profound. There's nothing to "snap" if the expectation of stable, modest inflation is baked into the markets. Fiat currencies usually implode only when something else undermines the confidence in the issuing government.

By eadmund 2025-09-2923:34

> your dollar is worth 8x less than what it was worth in 1970.

A dollar in 2025 is not worth -7 (i.e. eight times one less than one) dollars from 1970; it is worth ⅛th of a dollar from 1970.

Yes, I know what you mean. But ‘×’ is multiplication, not division — and phrases like ‘¼ less than’ and ‘3 less than’ have clear meanings inconsistent with using ‘8× less than’ to mean ‘⅛th.’

By zahlman 2025-09-2920:40

For that matter, the US recovered from the inflation of the 80s and avoided a serious hyperinflationary spiral of the sort seen in many less stable regimes, and when the real-terms price of gold spiked in 2011 it wasn't even accompanied by unusual levels of inflation.

By pizlonator 2025-09-2920:402 reply

The issue is that we're seeing asset price inflation that is far greater than CPI

In other words, we have two different inflations happening at once, leading to people who happened to own the right assets getting richer and everyone else getting poorer. I don't think that's what an efficient market would do, which implies that efficiency will kick in at some point and BOOM

By zahlman 2025-09-2920:41

> we're seeing asset price inflation that is far greater than CPI

Have a look at the CPI-adjusted gold chart, and think back to how awful things were (or weren't) in 2011.

By MountDoom 2025-09-2921:11

> In other words, we have two different inflations happening at once

CPI is just an index of consumer prices. It's like saying that we have two stock markets because Nvidia is going up faster than Costco.

> People who happened to own the right assets getting richer and everyone else getting poorer

It's not a zero-sum game. Almost everyone is more wealthy than their peers 30-40 years ago.

Wealth disparities widen, but the reasons for this are complex and go beyond inflation. And frankly, many of them are self-inflicted. Every single housing development in my neighborhood is thoroughly protested by everyone. And most of what my city officials do is inventing new rules and regulations. They're not working for big corporations or the federal government.

> I don't think that's what an efficient market would do

Sounds like you spotted an arbitrage opportunity?

By paulpauper 2025-09-2921:29

not really. Bitcoin is still around 10% from ATH. Art, wine and various collectibles are still down a lot from the highs. The dollar does not have anything to do with this. A falling dollar does not make Americans want to splurge or lead to speculation. Indeed, the dollar surged in 2008 and 2009, yet asset prices were falling. A falling dollar is only indicative of demand for other currencies. it has nothing to do with asset prices, as art and other prices are almost already quoted in dollars anyway. if people wanted to hedge the falling dollar, they would buy those currencies.

By m101 2025-09-2920:073 reply

The drivers of this in my view are:

1) flight from USD assets given views that one cannot depend on US assets as safe havens

2) central banks increasing gold holdings

3) purchases by Chinese investors as they have few places to invest their money

4) concern around debt levels deficits and democratic process ability to fix this

5) concerns around central bank independence, and hence inflation targeting, being undermined for political motivations

I have personally bought a lot of gold after having been a long term US equities investor because of its risk-off and zero duration nature. In a world of stock bubbles, high valuations, and general economic uncertainty, leaning risk-off has been where I currently feel comfortable. In a world of inflation being in zero duration is a sensible place to be.

By xhrpost 2025-09-2920:122 reply

>flight from USD assets given views that one cannot depend on US assets as safe havens

I keep seeing this but then I also keep seeing the opposite: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/foreigners-buying-us-stocks-r...

By rajnathani 2025-10-0712:04

41% [1] of S&P500 companies' (~Top 500 US stocks index which for example doesn't include TSMC, as it's only for US-listed companies) revenue comes from outside of the US. So really, people are buying into global companies when they're buying the S&P500.

[1] https://www.apolloacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/011...

By thanhhaimai 2025-09-2920:252 reply

I think you're conflating between 2 different things: the USD and US stocks from US companies.

- The USD is definitely losing value. That also means stocks from US companies would be cheaper from a foreigner's point of view.

- That means it represents good investment opportunity as long as the fundamentals of those companies are not affected too much (e.g. AI companies not directly affected by workers' raid, or pay tarrifs). Nothing is contradictory here.

By ajross 2025-09-2922:48

> - The USD is definitely losing value. That also means stocks from US companies would be cheaper from a foreigner's point of view.

That's actually not quite right. You can only buy securities on US markets with US dollars. You'd have to buy dollars on the money market to make that trade. So to the extent that "cheaper dollars" are driving investment in dollar-valued securities, they're increasing the value of the dollar on the global market by the same amount.

All markets seek toward efficiency. The situation you posit would be subject to a money-printing arbitrage loop if it actually existed.

By xhrpost 2025-09-2921:12

I understand what you're saying but I don't think I'm conflating. OP specifically said "USD assets", which I took to mean things like stocks.

By GeekyBear 2025-09-2920:122 reply

We've also had four big rounds of Quantitative Easing from the Fed since the financial crisis, with the most recent coming right after the pandemic.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

By bryanlarsen 2025-09-2921:03

The significant post-pandemic inflation came during a period of Quantitative Tightening.

By ambicapter 2025-09-2920:183 reply

This really feels like the original sin to me (I am not remotely an economist). Perhaps it can just be fixed with taxes to take money out of circulation.

By m101 2025-09-2920:51

Central bank money printing is morally bad given it's largely used to bail out either irresponsible government spending, or irresponsible private sector actors.

Central banks could reduce their balance sheets significantly more (and until recently the pace was pretty quick), but given where things are today it will undoubtedly be pretty politically unpalatable to do so (bond markets puking, making deficits even worse in the face of an inability to cut spending).

By d1sxeyes 2025-09-2921:321 reply

“We’re going to increase taxes!” “To spend on better public services?” “Nah, we’re just gonna burn it”

Easier said than done, I think.

By eadmund 2025-09-2923:361 reply

Is it possible that a fair amount of government expenditures are just a fancy way of burning money? E.g. cowboy poetry festivals.

By d1sxeyes 2025-09-305:42

The money doesn’t get burned though, it goes somewhere. Whether it’s for equipment hire or facilities or to compensate the cowboy poets for their time, or whatever.

By FuriouslyAdrift 2025-09-2920:27

Smartest thing to do but politically radioactive...

By grafmax 2025-09-2920:191 reply

> and democratic process ability to fix this

Actually we’ve shifted into authoritarianism and confidence has only worsened.

By m101 2025-09-2920:451 reply

I assume you are labelling trump the authoritarian. He has very little ability to impact on the majority of US spending, whilst a true authoritarian should be able to. The system has been corrupted to such an extent that it is basically impossible to change.

By grafmax 2025-09-3012:15

Maybe you are conflating authoritarianism with dictatorship but that is only one kind. We live in an oligarchy and have for many years. Trump is the latest intensification of that trend.

It’s backwards to blame the faults of oligarchy on democracy. The reverse would be true.

However you are quite right that political system we are living under seems incapable of righting itself. The upper class is like a parasite that doesn’t know or care if it’s killing its host.

By johnohara 2025-09-2920:381 reply

The price of gold fluctuated significantly in 1979 due to concerns over whether inflation could be brought under control. It started the year at ~$250.00 per ounce and ended the year at ~$850.00 per ounce.

It was a presidential election year and consumers were getting squeezed hard by rising energy prices. Russia invaded Afghanistan, Carter suspended participation in the Olympics, and there was a general feeling of concern.

Using Wolfram Alpha to compute gold's price in 1979 relative to 2025, "850.00 1979 dollars in 2025", the result is $3,663.84

Gold closed today at $3,858.60.

Just like 1979, 2025 has a long list of international concerns making investors nervous.

By paulpauper 2025-09-2921:262 reply

Yes, adjusted for inflation, gold has done much worse than the media hype would suggest.

By eadmund 2025-09-2923:391 reply

Of course, adjusted for inflation the dollar has done much, much worse than gold!

Not that one should put all of one’s portfolio into gold. That would be pretty insane. But a certain fixed allocation within a balanced portfolio? I think that makes sense.

By mettamage 2025-09-306:21

Fun take. True as well. Fiat money is very weak against inflation.

By defrost 2025-09-2922:39

Regardless, it's been a good winter trawling for nuggets on the W.Australian goldfields, not for much longer now the sun is starting to bite.