When an investment adviser makes a statement such as, "A good amount of gold's weakness may now have passed," does he really know what he's talking about? Does he have valid reasons to back up his premise? If so, why doesn't he provide them? To make such a statement without substantiating it is irresponsible.
To build such an argument, a responsible journalist should give three, four, or five reasons why he thinks "gold's weakness may now have passed." If the only reason he can provide is, the world is in financial turmoil and as a result gold will rise in price, he is using the faulty ad hominem approach. He is appealing to personal opinions rather than to fact or reason. To build a more concrete case, he should say, "gold's weakness may now have passed because (1) The government has revealed that there is a shortage of gold, (2) People are lined up at gold brokerages around the world buying as much of the metal as is available, and (3) Facebook just announced it will require 100,000 ounces of gold a day to power its Web site."
For the past ten years, "gold bugs" and wannabe "gold bugs" have enjoyed watching that metal's price rise. To them there's something magical about the whole thing. Those who decry the United States and its dollar, and who rant about the nation's mounting debt, derive much pleasure in pointing to gold as the only protection during these apocalyptic times. They might be right, but their predictions of gold's price rising to $2,500, $5,000, or higher an ounce have missed the mark perpetually.
A responsible investment adviser must put aside his personal opinions, silence the voices of the "Down with America" crowd in his head, and tell his readers exactly why he thinks gold will rise in value. Anything else is pointless.