From Gold to Growth: Between a Spectator Society and a Participatory Society
Economic Analysis by Dina Abdel Fattah
In August, Egypt’s central bank cut interest rates by 200 basis points. The move was not merely a technical monetary adjustment; it opened a broader social debate. Gold prices surged, with 21-carat reaching around EGP 4,650 per gram and 24-carat trading above EGP 5,300. The dollar, meanwhile, remained officially stable amid expectations of a gradual decline. Yet rather than directing attention towards factories and new ventures, society turned its gaze to screens—tracking hourly price shifts as though seated in a vast auditorium, watching events unfold without shaping them.
This scene reflects what may be called a “spectator society”: one that waits passively for external cues—whether from the central bank, market swings, or breaking news. In such a society, even if the value of one’s gold or dollars doubles, little changes in the real economy: no new factories, no jobs, no added value.
The alternative is a ‘participatory society’: one that views lower interest rates as an opportunity for cheaper credit, a stable dollar as a signal to expand operations, and rising gold not as a haven, but as a reminder that true security lies in productive investment. This society acts rather than reacts—it writes its own growth figures, setting signals for the world rather than waiting for them from market screens.
Saving, in itself, is not an error. Every society requires reserves. But saving becomes a drag when it turns into hoarding: gold bars stashed in homes, dollars locked away in drawers, liquidity lying dormant outside banks and markets. In such cases, wealth exists but remains idle, detached from the productive cycle. By contrast, saving channelled into banks, equities or enterprises becomes seed capital—germinating into productive energy that benefits both individuals and society.
Why, then, does the preference lean toward spectatorship rather than participation? The reasons are layered. Economically, repeated devaluations and persistent inflation have cemented gold and dollars as the default safe havens. Socially, a culture of caution—shaped by inherited notions that “gold is both ornament and security”—has reinforced this instinct. Politically, instability and lack of transparency have turned investment into a gamble, prompting many to retreat to perceived safe zones rather than venture into uncertainty.
The danger is that such dynamics create an economy dominated by narrow interest groups. Gold markets become concentrated, dollars flow through informal networks, and the shadow economy thrives while the formal one stagnates. By contrast, societies that channelled their savings into investment unlocked different futures: Morocco built industrial bases in automotive and renewables; South Korea nurtured global champions out of manufacturing; Singapore embedded investment within a long-term national vision. These countries did not sit idly before screens—they created their own, filled with growth metrics.
Gold may glitter and the dollar may command deference, but neither builds nations. Hoarding shields against temporary losses; investment creates jobs and shapes futures. One is defensive; the other offensive, opening pathways to progress.
Egypt today faces a central question: will it remain captive to market screens, asking each morning “What’s the dollar? What’s gold?”, or will it craft its own screen—displaying “How many factories opened? How many jobs were created? How many patents registered?” The answer lies not with the central bank or the markets alone, but with society itself: to remain a spectator—or become a participant.