You seem to have ignored the descriptions of the comparison in the article I linked to.
1. The suits are obtained from a particular location, usually a major capital in the developed world where people are accustomed to buying bespoke suits. Not some place like Bangkok. This eliminates your objection to variations in price by location.
So which world capital - Toronto, New York, London, Rome? Seems they all tell you different stories: http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/medi ... 7912&vid=5
2. The volatility issue is eliminated by the simple phrase "over time" that was used in my original statement. Yes gold is variable in price. Suits are also according to demand and economic conditions. Over time however the correspondence between the price of a good suit and an ounce of gold works well.
Of course, great cop out - by saying it is 'over time' you never need it to actually track at all because some day, over time it will again. If you think the volatility of gold is anything like the volatility of suit prices you are nuts, and if you think the trajectory of gold prices over time has tracked suits you are just being very selective in your data points.
The reason this description is used is that it eliminates an element of abstraction from the dialog, thereby making it easier for many readers to understand.
Yes, eliminates the abstraction and all those pesky details that make it untrue - that way readers can understand what you want them to and not have to worry about actual performance expectations. Who cares if between 1981 and 2004 gold prices declined 67% in real Canadian dollars terms while the price of a suit increased - over time it will all work out...
It is not 'silly'.
Yes, yes it is - very silly.