Is the question "Is price of gold a bubble?" appropriate for skeptics?
My take is that skeptics is both an appropriate place to ask this question, and the best place to ask it of the available SE sites, though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise and I'd be grateful for thoughts and suggestions.
Raskolnikov thoughtfully suggested personal finance (http://money.stackexchange.com) or quantitative finance (http://quant.stackexchange.com). I don't think the gold bubble would properly fit in either because the question not limited to personal finance or quantitative finance. Tempting though it may be to pigeonhole it into one of those topics, I'm skeptical that expertise from either of those fields would result in a an answer of the nature and quality I seek.
I think it's reasonably compelling that the question about gold being a bubble is suitable for Skeptics. From the Skeptics FAQ: "If you have a question about the accuracy of public claims made in the media or elsewhere, if you're interested in the evidence behind what you hear or read, then you are in the right place."
There are many public claims in the media that gold is a bubble, and I'd like to see gold being a bubble proven true through strong, verifiable evidence.
That being said, as Fabian suggested, irrefutable proof might only come after the fact of a burst (or not at all otherwise). However, if people are asserting that there is a bubble, what's the evidence upon which they make this claim? Would it be preferable to edit our gold question so it reads "Is there evidence to support a claim that gold is a bubble?" -- or perhaps more generically "is it possible to predict bubbles in advance of them bursting?"
That being said, I think it's possible (and I'm hopeful) someone could come forward and indicate that gold is (or is not) a bubble because of some evidentiary basis and comparison.
Thanks for reading!