$50k Gold?

Today on Gary North's "Tea Party Economist" he reviewed Jim Sinclair's prediction of $50,000 gold.  He called Jim's prediction a "senior moment", and gave all kinds of reasons based upon the inability of gold to produce an income stream why this would never happen. In Gary's opinion, investing in real estate would be much more preferable.

I think, with all due respect to these learned gentlemen, that they both either missed the point or hid it so carefully that it's difficult to find in their arguments.  Here's my reply to Gary's column:

"What Jim is basically predicting is the destruction of the dollar. The dollar will tank and be replaced long before that $50k is reached. By the time gold hits $5000, there will be a serious loss of confidence in the dollar. These numbers that are thrown out are just for effect. If the nominal price of gold were 50k an ounce, do you seriously think ANYONE would be willing to trade gold for FRNs? I tend to agree with Gary on this one, except he's making the assumption that $50,000 represents real value. Inflation is not the same thing as hyperinflation. Very, very severe inflation is not the same as hyperinflation. They are two totally different animals. Gary knows that. You can have extremely severe inflation and not have a loss of confidence in the currency. Hyperinflation occurs when it's obvious to everyone that the currency is a sham, and everyone's efforts are directed toward getting OUT of the currency and into anything that will hold value. When that occurs, price numbers are meaningless."

I don't think either Jim or Gary would want to know what I think:  If we even make it to 2020 (the date for Jim's prediction of 50k gold), we'll be lucky.  I, for one, am having difficulty even imagining the present state of affairs lasting six more years.  We're so close to the brink now, the slightest little push will send us off the edge.  Who knows what the world will look like in six years?