Was the gold standard good or bad? (Page 2 of 3)
You Must Be Logged In To Vote
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: You seem very emotional From 1967 to 2007 - a 40 year span - gold was flat. It LOST value due to inflation. LOST MASSIVE VALUE. What part of that don't you understand? "Storehouse of value"? LOLOLOLOL Look at the chart. Look at it. https://metalcharts.org/gold-price-history Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: It is easily contaminated, requiring constant upkeep in storage. It literally evaporates. You don't really understand what "store" means. It literally does, there is a giant assed industry dedicated to recovering data, and they often fail on aged systems. Air also isn't rare enough to have meaningful value. In long term storage it certainly does. Are you smoking crack? Maybe if you have the attention span of a gnat. It has consistently stored value with excellent reliablity. https://i.imgur.com/FEawdVJ.jpeg You accuse me of being emotional? You sound like gold keyed your car or something. Gold is a poor investment. I am not telling anyone to buy it. I am also sure as shit not telling anyone to hold the shitcoin known as the US dollar. The currency of the future will be blood and iron. You seem very emotional From 1967 to 2007 - a 40 year span - gold was flat. It LOST value due to inflation. LOST MASSIVE VALUE. What part of that don't you understand? "Storehouse of value"? LOLOLOLOL Look at the chart. Look at it. https://metalcharts.org/gold-price-history Did gold kick your dog or something? Name other physical objects you can personally own that has kept value similar to gold. There are some, but it is a pretty short list. If you want value you can personally keep, without reliance on others or systems outside of your control, it is pretty hard to beat. There is utility in that, depending on your view on the future. Are you better off putting your money into proper investment vehicles? Highly likely. But that also depends on social factors beyond control. There's a reason the Jews fleeing Europe in 1936-1939 showed up with gold they smuggled with them on their person, it offered the utility of storing wealth in a way that was difficult to confiscate, portable, durable, and suited to conversion to other assets. If you want to make the "YOU'D BE BETTER OFF WITH STONKS!" argument, I mean sure, that is true on paper. But those stonks are accessible to our future Mamdani wealth-tax overlords. Having some alternatives to easily confiscated wealth is probably wise at this point. No one is forcing you to buy gold. I'm not sure why it triggers you so much when the obvious utility it has in certain contexts is pointed out. |
|
Well, the silver standard wrecked Spain. From the web: During the 16th and 17th centuries, the Spanish Empire extracted over 150,000 tons of silver from the Americas—most notably from the "mountain of silver" at Cerro Rico in Potosí (modern-day Bolivia). They minted this silver into millions of coins known as Spanish reals (specifically the famous "pieces of eight" or real de a ocho), which became the world’s first global currency.Instead of making Spain permanently wealthy, flooding the economy with so much silver completely wrecked it due to several compounding failures: 1. The Price Revolution (Runaway Inflation)Economics was a primitive science at the time, and the Spanish Crown did not understand that increasing the money supply without increasing actual goods devalues the currency. With a massive influx of silver reals chasing a fixed amount of food, textiles, and land, prices skyrocketed across Spain and Europe—quadrupling over a single century. 2. Destruction of Domestic Industry Because inflation made Spanish labor and goods incredibly expensive, it became much cheaper for Spaniards to buy everyday products from foreign rivals like the Netherlands, France, and England. Instead of investing its wealth into domestic factories, infrastructure, or technology, Spain simply used its silver to import everything. 3. Constant War and DebtThe Habsburg monarchs viewed the endless stream of silver as a bottomless bank account. They engaged in non-stop, expensive European wars and borrowed aggressively from Italian and German bankers, using future silver shipments as collateral. When silver shipments were delayed or slowed down, the Crown couldn't pay its bills, leading the Spanish Empire to declare bankruptcy multiple times.By the time the silver mines began to dry up, Spain was left with a crippled manufacturing sector, a massive trade deficit, and astronomical debts. The silver effectively acted as a river that flowed through Spain rather than into it, enriching foreign merchants and leaving Spain economically hollowed out. |
In my defense, I was left unattended.
|
Originally Posted By TontoGoldstein: Well, the silver standard wrecked Spain. From the web: During the 16th and 17th centuries, the Spanish Empire extracted over 150,000 tons of silver from the Americas—most notably from the "mountain of silver" at Cerro Rico in Potosí (modern-day Bolivia). They minted this silver into millions of coins known as Spanish reals (specifically the famous "pieces of eight" or real de a ocho), which became the world’s first global currency.Instead of making Spain permanently wealthy, flooding the economy with so much silver completely wrecked it due to several compounding failures: 1. The Price Revolution (Runaway Inflation)Economics was a primitive science at the time, and the Spanish Crown did not understand that increasing the money supply without increasing actual goods devalues the currency. With a massive influx of silver reals chasing a fixed amount of food, textiles, and land, prices skyrocketed across Spain and Europe—quadrupling over a single century. 2. Destruction of Domestic Industry Because inflation made Spanish labor and goods incredibly expensive, it became much cheaper for Spaniards to buy everyday products from foreign rivals like the Netherlands, France, and England. Instead of investing its wealth into domestic factories, infrastructure, or technology, Spain simply used its silver to import everything. 3. Constant War and DebtThe Habsburg monarchs viewed the endless stream of silver as a bottomless bank account. They engaged in non-stop, expensive European wars and borrowed aggressively from Italian and German bankers, using future silver shipments as collateral. When silver shipments were delayed or slowed down, the Crown couldn't pay its bills, leading the Spanish Empire to declare bankruptcy multiple times.By the time the silver mines began to dry up, Spain was left with a crippled manufacturing sector, a massive trade deficit, and astronomical debts. The silver effectively acted as a river that flowed through Spain rather than into it, enriching foreign merchants and leaving Spain economically hollowed out. It is notable that everything in that list is a product of massive inflation, which is also how fiat currencies die. Inflation of that scale is pretty rare with metals, basically a one-off event from New World contact. Maybe Elon will drop a solid gold asteroid onto Earth and crash its value, but it's not a normal event. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Did gold kick your dog or something? Name other physical objects you can personally own that has kept value similar to gold. There are some, but it is a pretty short list. If you want value you can personally keep, without reliance on others or systems outside of your control, it is pretty hard to beat. There is utility in that, depending on your view on the future. Are you better off putting your money into proper investment vehicles? Highly likely. But that also depends on social factors beyond control. There's a reason the Jews fleeing Europe in 1936-1939 showed up with gold they smuggled with them on their person, it offered the utility of storing wealth in a way that was difficult to confiscate, portable, durable, and suited to conversion to other assets. If you want to make the "YOU'D BE BETTER OFF WITH STONKS!" argument, I mean sure, that is true on paper. But those stonks are accessible to our future Mamdani wealth-tax overlords. Having some alternatives to easily confiscated wealth is probably wise at this point. No one is forcing you to buy gold. I'm not sure why it triggers you so much when the obvious utility it has in certain contexts is pointed out. You avoided my point entirely. If gold was such an awesome "storehouse of wealth" that goldbugs often tout, why did it lose MASSIVE value compared to every other investment and the jelly donut between 1967-2007? Jews smuggled it out of Europe because it was compact and they had some. They also smuggled diamonds. (Diamonds are equally bad as PMs as a storehouse of value). Precious real estate and Old Master paintings can't be carried in a duffle. If your plan is to leave the U.S. in the middle of the night with whatever you can carry in a pocket, knock yourself out. If you believe The Man will come knocking at midnight and take all you sh*t, well, that's been predicted since God was a child. Could it happen? Sure, I guess. But we will be so deep in the mess by that time there will be no safe place to flee. Where you gonna go with your pocket full of gold? Tasmanistan? I own a very small amount of PMs and not buying any more. I'm looking for overall ROI. U do U. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1277
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: You avoided my point entirely. If gold was such an awesome "storehouse of wealth" that goldbugs often tout, why did it lose MASSIVE value compared to every other investment and the jelly donut between 1967-2007? Jews smuggled it put of Europe because it was compact and they had some. They also smuggled diamonds. (Diamonds are equally bad as PMs s a storehouse of value). Precious real estate and Old Master paintings can't be carried in a duffle. If your plan is to leave the U.S. in the middle of the night with whatever you can carry in a pocket, knock yourself out. If you believe The Man will come knocking at midnight and take all you sh*t, well, that's been predicted since God was a child. Could it happen? Sure, I guess. But we will be so deep in the mess by that time there will be no safe place to flee. Where you gonna go with your pocket full of gold? Tasmanistan? I own a very small amount of PMs and not buying any more. I'm looking for overall ROI. U do U. Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Did gold kick your dog or something? Name other physical objects you can personally own that has kept value similar to gold. There are some, but it is a pretty short list. If you want value you can personally keep, without reliance on others or systems outside of your control, it is pretty hard to beat. There is utility in that, depending on your view on the future. Are you better off putting your money into proper investment vehicles? Highly likely. But that also depends on social factors beyond control. There's a reason the Jews fleeing Europe in 1936-1939 showed up with gold they smuggled with them on their person, it offered the utility of storing wealth in a way that was difficult to confiscate, portable, durable, and suited to conversion to other assets. If you want to make the "YOU'D BE BETTER OFF WITH STONKS!" argument, I mean sure, that is true on paper. But those stonks are accessible to our future Mamdani wealth-tax overlords. Having some alternatives to easily confiscated wealth is probably wise at this point. No one is forcing you to buy gold. I'm not sure why it triggers you so much when the obvious utility it has in certain contexts is pointed out. You avoided my point entirely. If gold was such an awesome "storehouse of wealth" that goldbugs often tout, why did it lose MASSIVE value compared to every other investment and the jelly donut between 1967-2007? Jews smuggled it put of Europe because it was compact and they had some. They also smuggled diamonds. (Diamonds are equally bad as PMs s a storehouse of value). Precious real estate and Old Master paintings can't be carried in a duffle. If your plan is to leave the U.S. in the middle of the night with whatever you can carry in a pocket, knock yourself out. If you believe The Man will come knocking at midnight and take all you sh*t, well, that's been predicted since God was a child. Could it happen? Sure, I guess. But we will be so deep in the mess by that time there will be no safe place to flee. Where you gonna go with your pocket full of gold? Tasmanistan? I own a very small amount of PMs and not buying any more. I'm looking for overall ROI. U do U. Currency isn't supposed to be an investment vehicle. Gold still handily beat USD as a store of value over the period of 1967-2007 so I don't see what your point is here. Positive rate of return isn't a desirable trait in currency,although negative isn't desirable either. Gold stayed closer to break even than the popular alternative of "fiat" leaving it a better currency for the trait of store of wealth over most the proposed practical alternatives. |
Joined:
Aug 2023
Posts:
1476
EE: 0% (0)
MO, USA
|
Originally Posted By piperpa24: A currency that has no basis in gold or some other real physical valuable material is doomed. Our currency is backed by being the supreme Superpower on Earth. We have the ability to do anything to anybody we choose. That's really it. |
|
Originally Posted By Coati: Currency isn't supposed to be an investment vehicle. Gold still handily beat USD as a store of value over the period of 1967-2007 so I don't see what your point is here. Positive rate of return isn't a desirable trait in currency,although negative isn't desirable either. Gold stayed closer to break even than the popular alternative of "fiat." Huh? Gold got whalloped 1967-2007. Why? Because it's valued in USD, not the other way around. Question again: If you had bought gold in 1967 as a "storehouse of value" and sold it in 2007, would you be better off, or worse, than if you had bought damn near anything else? This is not a trick question. The term "storehouse of value" assumes that it is valued in some other form of currency. If you like, compare it against ANY other widely accepted currency during that time frame. |
|
Originally Posted By sprtpilot: Our currency is backed by being the supreme Superpower on Earth. We have the ability to do anything to anybody we choose. That's really it. There is some truth to this statement. The world's reserve currency has meaning. Nothing else is close. Could it change? Sure, I guess. But not anytime soon. |
I am Government Man, come from the government.
Joined:
Jan 2013
Posts:
28014
EE: 100% (18)
PA, USA
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: The total spot value of gold in vaults is more than the US M2 Money Supply. Uh huh, and how do you fund the acquisition of said gold? especially since aggressive purchasing would only drive prices higher. We struggle to service our existing debt. It's like me saying I should buy ten beach houses and retire on the rental income. Would work in theory... except I can't remotely afford to buy one, let alone ten. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1278
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Huh? Gold got whalloped 1967-2007. Why? Because it's valued in USD, not the other way around. Question again: If you had bought gold in 1967 as a "storehouse of value" and sold it in 2007, would you be better off, or worse, than if you had bought damn near anything else? This is not a trick question. The term "storehouse of value" assumes that it is valued in some other form of currency. If you like, compare it against ANY other widely accepted currency during that time frame. Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Originally Posted By Coati: Currency isn't supposed to be an investment vehicle. Gold still handily beat USD as a store of value over the period of 1967-2007 so I don't see what your point is here. Positive rate of return isn't a desirable trait in currency,although negative isn't desirable either. Gold stayed closer to break even than the popular alternative of "fiat." Huh? Gold got whalloped 1967-2007. Why? Because it's valued in USD, not the other way around. Question again: If you had bought gold in 1967 as a "storehouse of value" and sold it in 2007, would you be better off, or worse, than if you had bought damn near anything else? This is not a trick question. The term "storehouse of value" assumes that it is valued in some other form of currency. If you like, compare it against ANY other widely accepted currency during that time frame. OK, I will compare gold in 1967 to 2007 vs the currency USD. In 1966 1 oz of gold was worth $35 (nominal) or $366 (inflation adjusted) IN 2007 1 oz of gold was worth $666 (nominal) or $677 ( inflation adjusted). In 1966 $1 was worth $1 (nominal) or $10.53 (inflation adjusted) In 2007, $1 was worth $1 (nominal) or $1.65 ( inflation adjusted). USD lost about 5/6 of its value from 1966 to 2007. Gold approximately doubled. Gold stayed closer to zero return than USD from 1966 to 2007, making it the better currency over the period for store of value. "Store of value" (zero return) is a desirable property of currency. Good returns are not desirable for currency, and they should not function as investment vehicles (this in part, because there are 2 or more parties to every transaction, and currency exchanges are zero sum). |
|
Ironically, since the entire country is in debt, if we actually increased the value of the dollar it would drive people into further debt as their balances reflected a higher value due. If, suddenly overnight, a can of Coca Cola was 5 cents again and the cost of a car was $2,000, what happens to everyone with a 30 year mortgage with $750,000 in principal remaining? I get that the changes would need to come gradually, but it would take a ridiculously long time. Salaries would adjust to reflect greater buying power, but existing fixed-rate debts don't go by the dollar's buying power. I'm all in favor of the gold standard, but with a country 40 trillion dollars in debt people need to realize that even IF we turned the economy around and started paying the debt off, we're taking hundreds of years to actually get it reduced. it's just not practical. |
|
Originally Posted By piperpa24: A currency that has no basis in gold or some other real physical valuable material is doomed. It's valuable because people believe it's valuable. Just like fiat currency. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: I don't know why I have to explain why valuable things that don't rot are better than valuable things that do. And if your argument is "it doesn't have intrinsic material value", well, neither do fiat dollars, or people, if slavery isn't allowed. It's an argument against the realness of market value, actually. The market doesn't have to explain shit to you. The market has valued gold before we could write down how valuable it was. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By R2point0: You are right - gold and fiat money have value because people believe they have value. We are approaching agreement! They have value because people believe they do. Here's an inconvenient fact: Fewer and fewer people think about gold. Younger people especially. Here's another fact. For a "storehouse of value", you want something that keeps up with inflation. Know what does? The lowly CD! Right now rates are in the low 4s. That means after taxes they are in the low-mid 3s which keeps up with inflation. (Over very short periods, inflation is nearly meaningless.) Want a reliable "storehouse of value" with zero risk? Buy a CD. |
|
Fiat currency is better, but only with commensurate constitutional level protections requiring fiscal discipline, and an educated populace that knows to slap them on the peepee if they ever tried to unshackle themselves from these guardrails such that it would be political suicide to do so. |
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: We are approaching agreement! They have value because people believe they do. Here's an inconvenient fact: Fewer and fewer people think about gold. Younger people especially. Here's another fact. For a "storehouse of value", you want something that keeps up with inflation. Know what does? The lowly CD! Right now rates are in the low 4s. That means after taxes they are in the low-mid 3s which keeps up with inflation. (Over very short periods, inflation is nearly meaningless.) Want a reliable "storehouse of value" with zero risk? Buy a CD. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1279
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: We are approaching agreement! They have value because people believe they do. Here's an inconvenient fact: Fewer and fewer people think about gold. Younger people especially. Here's another fact. For a "storehouse of value", you want something that keeps up with inflation. Know what does? The lowly CD! Right now rates are in the low 4s. That means after taxes they are in the low-mid 3s which keeps up with inflation. (Over very short periods, inflation is nearly meaningless.) Want a reliable "storehouse of value" with zero risk? Buy a CD. Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Originally Posted By R2point0: You are right - gold and fiat money have value because people believe they have value. We are approaching agreement! They have value because people believe they do. Here's an inconvenient fact: Fewer and fewer people think about gold. Younger people especially. Here's another fact. For a "storehouse of value", you want something that keeps up with inflation. Know what does? The lowly CD! Right now rates are in the low 4s. That means after taxes they are in the low-mid 3s which keeps up with inflation. (Over very short periods, inflation is nearly meaningless.) Want a reliable "storehouse of value" with zero risk? Buy a CD. CDs don't have on-demand divisibility, so they fail as a currency. They are locked into a particular size until maturity. USD and gold both far superior as they are ~infinitely divisible on demand. It is possible to divide a locked up CD but only with legal fictions that hamper their portability. |
|
Originally Posted By Coati: OK, I will compare gold in 1967 to 2007 vs the currency USD. In 1966 1 oz of gold was worth $35 (nominal) or $366 (inflation adjusted) IN 2007 1 oz of gold was worth $666 (nominal) or $677 ( inflation adjusted). In 1966 $1 was worth $1 (nominal) or $10.53 (inflation adjusted) In 2007, $1 was worth $1 (nominal) or $1.65 ( inflation adjusted). USD lost about 5/6 of its value from 1966 to 2007. Gold approximately doubled. Gold stayed closer to zero return than USD from 1966 to 2007, making it the better currency over the period for store of value. "Store of value" (zero return) is a desirable property of currency. Good returns are not desirable for currency, and they should not function as investment vehicles (this in part, because there are 2 or more parties to every transaction, and currency exchanges are zero sum). See my post above about CDs. We agree, PMs are bad investments. But there is such a thing as "opportunity cost" which you completely ignored. There, we get into the investment value again and nobody is arguing that PMs are good investments. But one must always ask - "Where else could I put this money to use for maximum benefit?" From 1967-2007, it wasn't gold. It was anything BUT gold. You also ignored the "vig" - the spread between buy and ask, which is always a factor with PMs and they are ALWAYS against the individual buyer/seller. And esp. in SHTF, which GD obsesses over, gold isn't worth squat. Me: "You want my 50-year old box of .22 lr? Fine, that'll be 87 Krugerrands. I know what I got." |
|
Originally Posted By Coati: CDs don't have on-demand divisibility, so they fail as a currency. They are locked into a particular size until maturity. USD and gold both far superior as they are ~infinitely divisible on demand. It is possible to divide a locked up CD but only with legal fictions that hamper their portability. I didn't say they were "currency". Once again RIF. I said they are good "storehouses of value" right now after tax and inflation. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1280
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: I didn't say they were "currency". Once again RIF. I said they are good "storehouses of value" right now after tax and inflation. Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Originally Posted By Coati: CDs don't have on-demand divisibility, so they fail as a currency. They are locked into a particular size until maturity. USD and gold both far superior as they are ~infinitely divisible on demand. It is possible to divide a locked up CD but only with legal fictions that hamper their portability. I didn't say they were "currency". Once again RIF. I said they are good "storehouses of value" right now after tax and inflation. Positive returns are not desirable trait for a store of value. To think that only considers half of the equation; stores of value are used for both assets and liabilities. If gold were a good investment, it would be a bad store of value. But we care about "store of value" here in the context of the thread discussing "gold standard", which is way of designing currency. Store of value is one of the many desired traits of currency. If all we care about is store of value we've completely slid from the topic being discussed into a strawman of sorts. |
Professional Skater (as in being lazy)
Joined:
Apr 2016
Posts:
7880
EE: 100% (3)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By nightstalker: There is an interesting graph that shows a marked correlation between going off the gold standard in the 70's and a big divergence in wages leading to the opposite of "trickle down" for lower wage earners. I'll see if I can find it.https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1818/IMG_1698_png-3830661.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1818/IMG_1697_jpeg-3830662.JPG That’s exactly the reason I was asking. Minimum wage was around $1.60 an hour, x 40 hours=$64 a week. Gold was about $40 an ounce. Today gold is $4,300 an ounce. Just how much purchasing power was lost between then and now? |
|
Had its pro's and con's. The cold hard truth is it doesn't matter. The government can and will manipulate pricing. Whether its gold or a paper dollar or even bitcoin. As far as the argument on owning gold. Historically the best thing you can own is the US stock market. Preferably the S&P 500 index. Gold barely beats inflation. Is highly illiquid. And can be difficult to store safely. Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Did gold kick your dog or something? Name other physical objects you can personally own that has kept value similar to gold. There are some, but it is a pretty short list. If you want value you can personally keep, without reliance on others or systems outside of your control, it is pretty hard to beat. There is utility in that, depending on your view on the future. Are you better off putting your money into proper investment vehicles? Highly likely. But that also depends on social factors beyond control. There's a reason the Jews fleeing Europe in 1936-1939 showed up with gold they smuggled with them on their person, it offered the utility of storing wealth in a way that was difficult to confiscate, portable, durable, and suited to conversion to other assets. If you want to make the "YOU'D BE BETTER OFF WITH STONKS!" argument, I mean sure, that is true on paper. But those stonks are accessible to our future Mamdani wealth-tax overlords. Having some alternatives to easily confiscated wealth is probably wise at this point. No one is forcing you to buy gold. I'm not sure why it triggers you so much when the obvious utility it has in certain contexts is pointed out. If 1936-1939 were to occur again. The Jews would be wiring money internationally & carrying bitcoin on cold storage. Its fine to own Gold if you are wealthy and want to hedge. Its a bad investment choice for the average American. |
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: True, but so what? Gold has limited usefulness in the real world. Why should "durability" be the metric? Why shouldn't usefulness be the metric? How about water? It never changes. It can take several forms - liquid, solid, gas - but it's always water. |
|
Originally Posted By DmacRTCo: In 1976 we had 4 billionaires in the world. Now we have 8 just in my state alone. It was the moment we became serfs to the elite. I'm sorry, you think billionaires took the pie so there's none left for you? The Government injects $1.8 trillion into the economy every year with money they printed out of thin air, with no signs of slowing down. That means I can theoretically make 1,800 new billionaires a year, year after year not touching your stash at all. Billionaires didn't take your slice, government is watering it down such that the purchasing power of whatever money you have has eroded over 94% since coming off the gold standard. You too can be a millionaire someday, but so what when a big mac costs $600. Direct your ire to the appropriate place. Washington DC. |
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Yes, it has some industrial uses. So does every element to some degree. Also, chicks dig it. It's a shiny yellow metal. It makes nice jewelry. Other than that it has no "intrinsic" value. Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Originally Posted By TheAmaazingCarl: Pros: It makes the type of insane mass counterfeiting currently done by the fed nearly impossible. Cons: gold itself has intrinsic value and useful properties especially in high-end and specialized electronics. Using it as currency impedes technological progress. Yes, it has some industrial uses. So does every element to some degree. Also, chicks dig it. It's a shiny yellow metal. It makes nice jewelry. Other than that it has no "intrinsic" value. You mean other than actually existing in the real world, and possessing real utility (as opposed to the made up fantasy land of the federal reserve) it has no "intrinsic" value. lol |
"Dum spiro spero"
|
Originally Posted By Coati: Positive returns are not desirable trait for a store of value. To think that only considers half of the equation; stores of value are used for both assets and liabilities. If gold were a good investment, it would be a bad store of value. But we care about "store of value" here in the context of the thread discussing "gold standard", which is way of designing currency. Store of value is one of the many desired traits of currency. If all we care about is store of value we've completely slid from the topic being discussed into a strawman of sorts. You unsuccessfully attempted to argue that gold is a good "storehouse of value" with this argument: Currency isn't supposed to be an investment vehicle. Gold still handily beat USD as a store of value over the period of 1967-2007 so I don't see what your point is here. Positive rate of return isn't a desirable trait in currency,although negative isn't desirable either. Gold stayed closer to break even than the popular alternative of "fiat" leaving it a better currency for the trait of store of wealth over most the proposed practical alternatives. And then ignored completely the last few years of gold's extreme volatility, going to about $5K/oz in the last couple years, when it was, indeed, a good "investment". So which is it? Is gold a good "storehouse of value", or is it a good investment? It cannot be both by your own logic. We might make some progress if you'd pick a position and stick with it.  To be clear, here is my argument: Gold is a poor "storehouse pf value" because of its wild volatility and long historic periods when it was flat wrt inflation and taxes. Further, you keep ignoring the "vig" - the spread between buy and ask. Buyers/sellers get screwed on both ends. This double loss must be accounted for at the beginning and end of any period you wish to consider. And go! |
|
Originally Posted By ICEAGE: Had its pro's and con's. The cold hard truth is it doesn't matter. The government can and will manipulate pricing. Whether its gold or a paper dollar or even bitcoin. As far as the argument on owning gold. Historically the best thing you can own is the US stock market. Preferably the S&P 500 index. Gold barely beats inflation. Is highly illiquid. And can be difficult to store safely. If 1936-1939 were to occur again. The Jews would be wiring money internationally Originally Posted By ICEAGE: Had its pro's and con's. The cold hard truth is it doesn't matter. The government can and will manipulate pricing. Whether its gold or a paper dollar or even bitcoin. As far as the argument on owning gold. Historically the best thing you can own is the US stock market. Preferably the S&P 500 index. Gold barely beats inflation. Is highly illiquid. And can be difficult to store safely. Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Did gold kick your dog or something? Name other physical objects you can personally own that has kept value similar to gold. There are some, but it is a pretty short list. If you want value you can personally keep, without reliance on others or systems outside of your control, it is pretty hard to beat. There is utility in that, depending on your view on the future. Are you better off putting your money into proper investment vehicles? Highly likely. But that also depends on social factors beyond control. There's a reason the Jews fleeing Europe in 1936-1939 showed up with gold they smuggled with them on their person, it offered the utility of storing wealth in a way that was difficult to confiscate, portable, durable, and suited to conversion to other assets. If you want to make the "YOU'D BE BETTER OFF WITH STONKS!" argument, I mean sure, that is true on paper. But those stonks are accessible to our future Mamdani wealth-tax overlords. Having some alternatives to easily confiscated wealth is probably wise at this point. No one is forcing you to buy gold. I'm not sure why it triggers you so much when the obvious utility it has in certain contexts is pointed out. If 1936-1939 were to occur again. The Jews would be wiring money internationally I want you to think about that carefully. Did the Nazis let Jews leave Germany with "legitimate" wealth before the war? Nope, they confiscated everything they owned on paper. Did our government let Russians that returned to Russia in 2022 wire their money there? Nope. Will a future totalitarian state let you just move your money to a freer place? Hell naw. The bad guys get a say too, by the time things are bad enough to warrant these considerations. & carrying bitcoin on cold storage. This is true, crypto is an excellent tool for this purpose, though its stability in value is somewhat less dependable, and it has fewer outlets for cashing out to local currency. Its fine to own Gold if you are wealthy and want to hedge. Its a bad investment choice for the average American. I agree, but I think beyond a hedge, it us useful for "what do you do when demons with power want your wealth?" tool. Those times are less of a remote possibility by the day. |
|
Originally Posted By Caeser2001: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9_HSPX9KRgEmAKiavq203DAxT7p0CQehz0DYOAIjG3RGJqitwihFsbRiQ&s=10 Gold loses on so many of those metrics. It is not divisible - try buying a pack of gum with gold. It is not "uniform" in the sense that counterfeits abound, and they cannot easily be distinguished by average people. It is not acceptible everywhere, or even most anywhere - again try buying a cheeseburger with gold. And let's be honest. A zillion people just don't want it. OTOH, the USD is accepted damn near everywhere on the planet. Also, what is the source for your table? It doesn't show one. Is it just somebody's opinion? Genuine Q. |
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: It is not "uniform" in the sense that counterfeits abound, and they cannot easily be distinguished by average people. Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Originally Posted By Caeser2001: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9_HSPX9KRgEmAKiavq203DAxT7p0CQehz0DYOAIjG3RGJqitwihFsbRiQ&s=10 It is not "uniform" in the sense that counterfeits abound, and they cannot easily be distinguished by average people. This is a pretty dumb take. Dollars are much more readily counterfeited and your average idiot needs tools to identify real ones, just like gold coins. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: I want you to think about that carefully. Did the Nazis let Jews leave Germany with "legitimate" wealth before the war? Nope, they confiscated everything they owned on paper. Did our government let Russians that returned to Russia in 2022 wire their money there? Nope. Will a future totalitarian state let you just move your money to a freer place? Hell naw. The bad guys get a say too, by the time things are bad enough to warrant these considerations. This is true, crypto is an excellent tool for this purpose, though its stability in value is somewhat less dependable, and it has fewer outlets for cashing out to local currency. I agree, but I think beyond a hedge, it us useful for "what do you do when demons with power want your wealth?" tool. Those times are less of a remote possibility by the day. And had the nazis known about the gold in someone's pocket, they would have let them leave with it? And where, exactly, are you going to go with your pocket full of gold and who's to say it will be accepted there? Good gawd, man. They stole the gold from dead people's teeth. I love a good fantasy as much as the next person, but this is like the Rolex threads where some yahoo says "Waaaaaal, I can take my Rolex anywhere and get a plane ticket out in exchange for it." LOL no. Some goombah is gonna stick a fork in your neck and take your Rolex. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: This is a pretty dumb take. Dollars are much more readily counterfeited and your average idiot needs tools to identify real ones, just like gold coins. My credit card is paid in dollars and nobody has counterfeited those. Yes, the card sometimes gets hacked but I don't owe a dime. Please think your posts through a bit more. |
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: My credit card is paid in dollars and nobody has counterfeited those. Yes, the card sometimes gets hacked but I don't owe a dime. Please think your posts through a bit more. Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: This is a pretty dumb take. Dollars are much more readily counterfeited and your average idiot needs tools to identify real ones, just like gold coins. My credit card is paid in dollars and nobody has counterfeited those. Yes, the card sometimes gets hacked but I don't owe a dime. Please think your posts through a bit more. So you assert GoldCoinBad because "it can be counterfeited", I point out dollars are more easily counterfeited, and your response is "but MY dollars aren't counterfeits!" Interesting. Enjoy normieville. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: So you assert GoldCoinBad because "it can be counterfeited", I point out dollars are more easily counterfeited, and your response is "but MY dollars aren't counterfeits!" Interesting. Enjoy normieville. Of course paper dollars can be counterfeited. Do you make all your purchases in paper? Do you pay your bills in paper dollars? Or do you use auto debit, or CC? What % of your total bills do you pay with paper USD? How much do you pay with gold? |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: So you assert GoldCoinBad because "it can be counterfeited", I point out dollars are more easily counterfeited, and your response is "but MY dollars aren't counterfeits!" Interesting. Enjoy normieville. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Exceptionally Thick Member
Joined:
Jul 2024
Posts:
2223
EE: 100% (22)
NM, USA
|
Iv'e said this before many times, the kilowatt hour is the best trade unit ever, it cannot be forged, it is debt based and fully redeemable and can be transfered in many ways, everybody can use it and produce it. One gallon of gasoline contains about 33.7 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of raw energy, A standard cord of seasoned hardwood contains about 5,800 to 7,300 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of total thermal energy (gross calorific value), or roughly 20 million BTUs |
|
Originally Posted By KitBuilder: It was good, but it's impossible to go back. Switching to fiat currency worked out much better for the government than the citizens. The government holds all the power, citizens bear all the risk, and wealth held as cash is guaranteed to lose value. Excellent post. |
https://www.amazon.com/Gentle-Propositions-J-S-Economos/dp/0615997635
|
You think inflation is bad? Wait till you get hit by a deflationary spiral. Moving to a gold standard would kill the cheap lending everyone is addicted to overnight and pretty much crash the economy. Controlled inflation means people with money have to use it or lose it, which gives everyone the capital needed to operate. Deflationary cycles encourage people with money to hoard it while simultaneously making existing payments more taxing on the poor. The gold standard was only a thing because pre-20th century governments weren't stable enough and lacked the power to enforce an effective fiat currency so money had to be tied to something universally acceptable. It was a step up from having to barter with your neighbor for things, but it was far from perfect. |
|
Originally Posted By Actiondiver: Gold is Gods money with honest weights & measures. Perverting it has perverted everything the non-redeemable fiat dollar touches & has led or is leading to the collapse of all institutions from marriages to the full faith and credit of the federal government. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
1
EE: 0% (0)
USA
| Gold standard was probably the best that could be done at the time, but there were still issues. Mainly that governments/banks were trusted to not print more paper than could be backed by gold, which is what ultimately led to the U.S. defaulting on its international obligations. And while a gold standard is a hard money in that it takes effort and work to make more of it (contrary to fiat currency that is created at will), it is still inflationary. Many people are conditioned to think that deflation is the worst possible scenario for an economy. That is true if the economy is completely based on credit. It would be very possible to have a deflationary currency and also an economy that allows credit. Malinvestment is limited because money gains purchasing power over time and people are more careful with borrowing because loans become harder to pay back over time. |