It's been useful for me. I just paid off one of my short term loans on the sell of gold. The guy was complaining about the price and I was complaining about the interest on the note. I mean they're both useful.
I told him the gold will outlast the paper. If there were a sale on paper notes and gold that had both gone through a fire, " Tell me who , in their right mind would show up with a shovel to scoop up ashes ? "
Well, its certainly been a store of loss over the last several years for a lot of people. A bank account and a mixed portfolio or a stack of 100's can be and more readily a symbol and store of wealth too. Even on the Gold Rush show on TV, the first thing they do when they get gold is unload it for cash or convert it and put it in the bank. Its funny they have all that gold, but their most valuable asset is a good dirt mover.
As our dear Cohodk has shown numerous times, it's all about the time frame. Gold was a fabulous store of value from 2000-2012. It's still up 4.5X since 2000 so that's not exactly trash. The stock market was a store of loss from 1929-1954, 1966-1982, 1998-2009. All lengthy periods.
The US dollar is a symbol used all over the world. People know and understand its denominations and value. Gold has a limited audience. The common person doesn't even know its value or how to use it if they had to (or most governments for that matter because they have over diluted its delusional value).
It was just a few years ago with the dollar index in the lower 70's where supermodels and most of the world were trashing the dollar. They didn't want to accept them in transactions. They wanted gold or Euros, anything but depreciating dollars (remember the huge dollar slide from 2001 to 2009 where the dollar index fell from 121-74?....or how about the slide from 1986 where it reached an all time peak of 165?). This view is very US-centric. I would say with over 2/3 of the world's population residing in Asia and Europe that gold has a wide audience...and if anything the dollar is less understood. Most common people around the world understand precious metals and jewelry. They are quite leery of any paper currency having been through numerous currency crisis over the centuries.
I would agree that Americans are dollar-phobes and do not understand gold as an alternative currency. Gold is a symbol all over the world, that's why the CB's store 32,000 tonnes of it. Call them delusional like Alan Greenspan if you will, but the proof is in their vaults. There are less than $1 TRILL in FRN's circulating outside the USA. How is that a symbol? Most people in the world probably don't own a single Federal Reserve Note. There's only enough for 18c per person on average. Gold is 3X more available than FRN's overseas and is probably more widely owned. The American view on gold (and currencies) doesn't translate well overseas.
Jewelry is an instant lose of value (not that a ridiculously 1000% overprice gold item has any real value except being a dramatic loss). I'd rather have a .999 bar sitting.
I would agree...if buying from US retail stores. If I want to buy very nice and slightly used 18-22K gold jewelry for essentially spot I can do that from several coin dealers.
Losing lots of money on "new" jewelry is an American view where our jewelry stores typically mark up gold jewelry by 2X to 10X. Americans tend to buy jewelry for emotions and not investment. That is not the same overseas where you see a lot of 24K jewelry items that are rarely worn and function as a store of money. It's not that hard to find Asian 18K-24K "new" gold jewelry being sold near spot prices with a tiny premium for "workmanship." It's not like the USA at all. Gold is a whole different animal in Asia.
<< <i>Nearly 1 of 3 in a precious metals chatroom think gold is no better than essentially worthless. Impressive. No court in this country would convict baseball. >>
Maybe the next poll should be of those 1/3 who feel gold is no better than essentially worthless, how many of them own gold or silver bullion? That might have impressive results too. The results are running around what I thought they would following a 3-4 year bear market, though I actually expected more votes for "useless." How do you think the results would have been in Jan-March 2008 or August 2011 or even Sept 2012?
Once again, if you lost every spec of gold on earth, mankind would move on just fine immediately afterward. There might be some slight disturbances here and there but absolutely no "shock" to society in any effective way. That is effective useless as useless can get. Gold's PRIMARY and INTENDED purpose (or "use") by those who mine it, buy it, own it is to let it sit there and do NOTHING. That is PREDOMINANTLY the INTENDED and ACCEPTED and DESIRED "use". And you really want to debate and take "polls" about such an obvious fact???
The poll so far is running >2/3 that gold around the world does not just "sit there and do nothing." That's why polls are taken. The above statement above is apparently not an "obvious fact" to 2/3 of the readers here.
A grand jury only needs a simple majority to indict. Some cases are heard before a panel of judges. The US law making and election system for the most part works on a majority. No one is trying to convict Baseball, though some of the major points he has stated (like the one above) would surely challenge a knowledgeable panel/jury not to find 12-0 against such a statement. I would agree with the above statement if it were changed to this:
Gold's PRIMARY and INTENDED purpose (or "use") by those who mine it, is to sell it. It then generally just sits around until required to perform any of its specific functions. Some of those functions occur while it is just sitting.
<< <i>Gold's PRIMARY and INTENDED purpose (or "use") by those who mine it, is to sell it. It then generally just sits around until required to perform any of its specific functions. Some of those functions occur while it is just sitting. >>
The most accurate statement so far. Which would place it in the "quasi useful" category.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<< <i>I suppose you've never been bullish on Google either, then? >>
Google is a brilliant and well managed company. Much better value (at a lower market cap) than the venture that Zuckerberg swiped from the Winklevoss twins.
<< <i>But the FACT remains that gold in and of itself is virtually useless. If you want to hide behind the fact that it can be sold for money and used for anything, that fact is obvious when I state time and again that it has value. But that value is solely from the mere notion that people ascribe value to it, once again. Gold in and of itself is virtually useless. And as I state time and again, mankind would not miss it essentially AT ALL if it disappeared forever. >>
No, it is not a "fact", it is your opinion based on your subjective values of what you deem to be useful and what is not. Is something useless because it cannot be fashioned into some widget for consumption? Gold is used in dentristry, in electronics, glass making, it is used in aerospace and computers. How exactly is that "useless"?
Gold has monetary, cultural and artistic / aesthetic components that are all extremely useful to those who find value in them even though you do not, or if you limit something's value to its base utility or consumptive value.
<< <i>I suppose you've never been bullish on Google either, then? >>
Google is a brilliant and well managed company. Much better value (at a lower market cap) than the venture that Zuckerberg swiped from the Winklevoss twins. >>
Google has a higher market cap that Facebook. And in fairness to Zuckerberg, it's not Google came up with the idea of search engines. There were several WIDELY used SEs prior to Google, not the least of which was Yahoo. >>
Do you want to debate which Matzo is better for making Matzo Balls too?
<< <i>It's been acknowledged time again that it has limited uses in industry. But the FACT remains that the OVERWHELMING percentage of it sits around and THAT IS the primary, desired and intended "use". TO BE USELESS. THAT is the actual "useful" intent by those who buy or own it.
If gold were priced and valued based on demand and supply driven by its actual legitimate uses, it would trade for peanuts. One COULD actually "use" it functionally for a ton of different things, but it isn't remotely cost effective to do so and quite frankly, there isn't anywhere near enough of it to do so for long. >>
Baseball, as smart as you are, your reasoning on this issue is severely limited in scope. It is not necessary that an object or thing be put to work like some pack mule to be useful. Gold has been deemed, amongst a host of positive qualities, as a monetary instrument. As such, gold in the forms of bars, bullion and coin, the very purpose of such, is to be a store of value. Sitting there doing "nothing" is absolutely valuable and useful for this specific purpose. Gold has the very best qualities for this role, and humans have chosen gold to fulfill that role, again, amongst many roles gold plays culturally, monetarily and artistically / aesthetically, with a minor role in industry.
Gold has a very high demand, else why would miners spend time and energy mining and refining it? The reasons may not be apparent or valuable to your subjective viewpoint, but to hundreds of millions of others (700 million Indians for example), gold is extremely useful and desireable for a host of reasons that transcend gold's usefulness as some consumable commodity in industry.
Treating gold as other commodities and how it "ought" to be priced based on its base utility is missing three of its four main components, focusing on the aspect of its least use; industry. Gold has qualitities and relative rarity that make it perfect for all the useful purposes and roles it fulfills now.
First you want to talk up gold’s use in jewelry and now you do a complete 180 and state that people own them just to let it sit there. What’s more, all your ranting and ravings in this thread revolve around the notion of the value of gold, NOT real necessary uses. And I’m not sure what your juvenile objective is in starting this poll regardless of the outcome. It says NOTHING one way or the other, as do your posts in this thread (though you do have a lot of "useful" posts, especially in the coin forum).... >>
I've been very consistent above as all can see. I made it quite clear that jewelry of all sorts probably gets used at least once per year. In my mind that's still sitting there >95% of the time. So what? Only rantings and ravings in your mind baseball. Much of what I've presented are facts or statistics from history. There's room for interpretation but not complete dismissal. If you disagree with any of those statistics, come up with your own sources and present them. And this was supposed to be a poll until you chimed in with more barbs. I suggested the other day that you should conduct a poll to assess views on this subject. You didn't make the effort. So I did. My gift to you. Merry Christmas
It's been acknowledged time again that it has limited uses in industry. But the FACT remains that the OVERWHELMING percentage of it sits around and THAT IS the primary, desired and intended "use". TO BE USELESS. THAT is the actual "useful" intent by those who buy or own it. If gold were priced and valued based on demand and supply driven by its actual legitimate uses, it would trade for peanuts.....
This has only been acknowledged by Baseball. That fact that most gold sits (whether as jewelry, coin, or good delivery 400 oz bars) is not "USELESS." The fact that buyers purchased the gold indicates it has a USE to them. The fact that much gold sits is because of its concentrated value. If gold were solely priced on supply and demand it would be worth approx $252 or more, not peanuts. This was essentially proven in 1999-2000 when gold traded that low as pretty much just a 99.44% commodity. And that was in line with its value back (minus inflation) in the early 1970's when it was no longer part of the world's "official" monetary system. Without the London Gold Pool in the 1960's gold likely would have doubled in price much like silver did....hence around a $70 gold price in 1969 or 1971. That's probably what it would have gone to with just normal market supply and demand. Since that time inflation has increased prices approx 6X. A reasonable price today based solely on a commodity would probably be around $420. Using the CPI index from 2000 to 2014 and applying it to $252 yields about $335/oz today. So in my mind $335-$450 is probably a fair estimate of the "commodity only" price of gold today. It's not peanuts.
But my contention has always been that in and of itself, gold is useless. I stand by that statement. As I repeatedly state, if all of the gold in the world disappeared, mankind would move on just fine without it. THAT is the litmus test that I use and I modestly consider it a reasonable one. That litmus test is not remotely true with SO MANY other things like iron ore, wood/trees, cars, computers, internet, etc. just to name a few.
This statement is fine if you can back it up with some facts vs. opinion. Explain how 4 important European nations that carry 54-67% of their foreign reserves in gold would "easily" handle their gold disappearing tomorrow? It's a simple request and goes to the crux of your statement. If that statement is the litmus test then explain why losing 2/3 of ones sovereign foreign reserves doesn't matter. These countries can't print currency on their own unlike the USA. They can issue sovereign bonds though if anyone would buy them after a 2/3 haircut in their reserves. What if their remaining reserves aren't very liquid, or are not worth enough to handle short term financing concerns? Reserves disappearing mean interest rates rise on the bonds of that nation, and probably sharply So far your litmus "test" is only a litmus "opinion." As of 2012 Germany had 72% of its foreign reserves in gold (over 3,000 tonnes). I'd imagine it would bother them a wee bit to lose that.
Let’s say that Ruritania (a fictional country) is suspected of being in poor financial shape. International speculators might sell their own holdings of country’s currency, or sell short or sell in forward trades. This will tend to depress the value of the currency. Other speculators may see the attack and join in, further weakening the currency. The country could let it’s exchange rate fall, but many countries don’t like this option. A falling exchange rate makes imports more expensive to its citizens and may also disrupt financing that Ruritanian companies receive from foreign banks.
If Ruritania has sufficient foreign reserves, it could start buying its own currency, selling its foreign currencies to pay for its purchases. With deep reserves, the country could thwart the speculators. In fact, deep reserves would probably prevent the speculation in the first place. The financial speculators know that it is futile to bet against a currency backed by substantial reserves.
The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 taught many countries the value of having large reserves for foreign currencies. Most countries are now pretty heavily invested in their foreign exchange reserves. .
Seems to me a lack of reserves n(or the loss of them) can cause big problems. Russia could be in this very predicament. Unfortunately, they don't have 54-67% of their foreign reserves in gold to more easily fight off the Ruble attacks. They would have loved to been in that situation. This is one reason they've been building their gold reserves since 2006. As of 2012 they were at the 9% level. They're going to have to rely on Rubles, dollars, Yuan, Yen, Euro's, Swiss Francs, Cando's and Aussies, and whatever else they have in the bank, assuming those are easily accessed liquid funds, and not currency swaps, derivatives or other junk. The litmus test might work for iron and wood, not looking so good for gold. Some day in the future, gold will probably join those others.....but, not yet. First step would be getting rid of fiat currencies that are heavily manipulated and consistently devalued (ie an effective one world currency/exchange system that has adequate controls).
<< <i> All your comments run around in circles and is based on the same theme. That gold has value. No one is debating that so I'm not sure what you're point is. Your comments about "reserves" over and over proves nothing about the fact that gold in and of itself is useless. Once again, it has value and in certain limited transactions, it can be used as payment, or in the very least, sold to use as money. Money, which actually is quite useful. And even that "value" is entirely predicated on RELIGION. There is no rational basis for it. If it actually had any inherent value, then a person stranded on an island should choose a pound of gold over a gun with ammo. But NO ONE would do that because its only predominant "use" is that it has value in and of itself. NOT that it can really be used for anything fundamental. >>
None of this addressed your very own "litmus test" on gold. At least if I stated some theory, I would be at least try to defend that position. Please answer my question on how the European nations with 54-72% in gold foreign reserves would handle losing their gold overnight? This is your debate and your litmus test. Please keep from avoiding the real issue and provide your logic on how those nations would see nothing more than a little "hiccup." We need some hard facts, logic and economic reasoning....not another "story" as you typed above. Merry Litmus.
<< <i>I suppose you've never been bullish on Google either, then? >>
Google is a brilliant and well managed company. Much better value (at a lower market cap) than the venture that Zuckerberg swiped from the Winklevoss twins. >>
Google has a higher market cap that Facebook. And in fairness to Zuckerberg, it's not Google came up with the idea of search engines. There were several WIDELY used SEs prior to Google, not the least of which was Yahoo. >>
Do you want to debate which Matzo is better for making Matzo Balls too? >>
Everyone who favors them knows Kartoffelland makes the best Potato Dumplings..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< But the FACT remains that gold in and of itself is virtually useless. If you want to hide behind the fact that it can be sold for money and used for anything, that fact is obvious when I state time and again that it has value. But that value is solely from the mere notion that people ascribe value to it, once again. Gold in and of itself is virtually useless. And as I state time and again, mankind would not miss it essentially AT ALL if it disappeared forever. >>
No, it is not a "fact", it is your opinion based on your subjective values of what you deem to be useful and what is not. Is something useless because it cannot be fashioned into some widget for consumption? Gold is used in dentristry, in electronics, glass making, it is used in aerospace and computers. How exactly is that "useless"?
Gold has monetary, cultural and artistic / aesthetic components that are all extremely useful to those who find value in them even though you do not, or if you limit something's value to its base utility or consumptive value.
Tyler
<< It's been acknowledged time again that it has limited uses in industry. But the FACT remains that the OVERWHELMING percentage of it sits around and THAT IS the primary, desired and intended "use". TO BE USELESS. THAT is the actual "useful" intent by those who buy or own it.
If gold were priced and valued based on demand and supply driven by its actual legitimate uses, it would trade for peanuts. One COULD actually "use" it functionally for a ton of different things, but it isn't remotely cost effective to do so and quite frankly, there isn't anywhere near enough of it to do so for long. >>
Baseball, as smart as you are, your reasoning on this issue is severely limited in scope. It is not necessary that an object or thing be put to work like some pack mule to be useful. Gold has been deemed, amongst a host of positive qualities, as a monetary instrument. As such, gold in the forms of bars, bullion and coin, the very purpose of such, is to be a store of value. Sitting there doing "nothing" is absolutely valuable and useful for this specific purpose. Gold has the very best qualities for this role, and humans have chosen gold to fulfill that role, again, amongst many roles gold plays culturally, monetarily and artistically / aesthetically, with a minor role in industry.
Gold has a very high demand, else why would miners spend time and energy mining and refining it? The reasons may not be apparent or valuable to your subjective viewpoint, but to hundreds of millions of others (700 million Indians for example), gold is extremely useful and desireable for a host of reasons that transcend gold's usefulness as some consumable commodity in industry.
Treating gold as other commodities and how it "ought" to be priced based on its base utility is missing three of its four main components, focusing on the aspect of its least use; industry. Gold has qualitities and relative rarity that make it perfect for all the useful purposes and roles it fulfills now.
Tyler
Tyler, thank you for your clear and straightforward comments. It's kinda crazy when you can give many clear examples of the usefulness of gold and then have baseball come right back and say that gold is useless. Obviously, there's something going on here but I'm at a loss to say exactly what it's about. I've seldom seen anyone work so hard to push an opinion when so many facts and examples stand in his way.
It's comical, but concerning when someone can repeatedly say that gold has value but no usefulness. Almost like what a central banker would have you believe.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
gold biggest role is that it serves as money. how can any form of money be useless when it can be traded for just about anything that does have an obvious "use?" It is included in many portfolios including those held by most of the world's central banks. Until it moves from being an asset to being a liability it will remain "useful."
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Tyler, thank you for your clear and straightforward comments. It's kinda crazy when you can give many clear examples of the usefulness of gold and then have baseball come right back and say that gold is useless. Obviously, there's something going on here but I'm at a loss to say exactly what it's about. I've seldom seen anyone work so hard to push an opinion when so many facts and examples stand in his way.
It's comical, but concerning when someone can repeatedly say that gold has value but no usefulness. Almost like what a central banker would have you believe.
Merry Christmas everyone! >>
Well said, and I agree. Baseball has been schooled in this thread no matter how much he wants to deny it. The sad part is he doesn't understand his opinion is NOT fact.
Gold is money. Real wealth. Unlike paper, that is only 'perceived wealth', backed by empty promises that can disappear in the blink of an eye, as history has proven.
Much the same, guns are useless. But a well armed society is a polite society. Who would question whether a gun is loaded with lead or silver bullets when pointed at someone ?
Nothing is useless if it gives someone a sense of security or fear. A rock was useless too…. until it got in the hand of David who slew Goliath.
The poll has been pretty consistent since it started. I expected more votes for #1: Useless. I purposely placed it first on the list to make it the "easiest" one to select. A lot of the countries whose currencies have been under stress the past 0-3 years are probably going to be a lot happier if they had foreign reserves loaded with dollars and/or gold. In choosing #2 one has to reason that 32,000 tonnes in central bank gold (19% of the world's above ground holdings) is essentially useless or having very minor utility or value. In particular, why would the US, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, and France carry 54-72% of their foreign reserves in gold? Maybe it is just a leftover notion that eventually will be changed. Or maybe it's because of their occupation/roles/lessons learned in the last WW. The US have 20,663 tonnes in 1952 and sold off 60% of it since.
1. Useless in all respects. Like the definition below. 2. Effectively useless, having only very minor utility or value in today's world. 3. Useful in today's world, having a number of significant uses without suitable or ready replacements.
In choosing #2 one has to reason that 32,000 tonnes in central bank gold (19% of the world's above ground holdings) is essentially useless or having very minor utility or value.
I chose #2 because I think humans like to decorate themselves. I also think at times it can be a very good (useful) investment while at other times a very poor (useless) investment. Gold held by central banks means more to those (banks) that have seen their countries occupied and conquered than those that have not. However, holding gold has never kept a country from being overrun.
Golds value never changes It's value is constant The amount of currency you need to purchase it does change And as it requires more and more, you understand the value you Have in that worthless paper
<< <i>Golds value never changes It's value is constant The amount of currency you need to purchase it does change And as it requires more and more, you understand the value you Have in that worthless paper >>
Yes, if you take what something cost in gold 100 years ago, it still costs about the same today. In paper terms, that isn't true. That proves exactly how paper is not real wealth because history has proven it is always devalued by the 'printers'.
Gold is in an of itself a useless rock. Yes, it could be useful for a lot of things but not at its cost nor the fact that it is too rare.
lol, gold is too rare to be useful? lol.
The only real effect it has is its value.
If it is a real effect, it's not useless.
And that value is sole ascribed by human beings on FAITH ALONE. That's it.
You're confusing paper fiat with gold here. The paper is backed by the "full faith & credit of the US". I don't see any gold coins or bars that have to be stamped with a "promise". How many times has any government reneged on their "promises"? In contrast, an ounce of gold is what it is, and you don't have to get a special note from the nanny state to ascertain it's value.
Those are all facts.
What you've stated aren't even facts, especially when you contradict your own statements.
You're welcome.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>In 100 years, there has been a drastic change in how gold is perceived. >>
Not true. Gold is still coveted for its beauty, indestructability, durability and store of wealth. >>
100 years ago, it was universally (by human beings) coveted, not necessarily for all those reasons. Now, plenty of human beings feel perfectly fine never crossing paths with gold in their lifetimes. >>
You certainly have a well defined handle on 7,000,000,000,000 individuals. In countries like India which are growing from third world to 1st world economic status, gold has and certainly is coveted as a valuable store of wealth.
<< <i> 100 years ago, it was universally (by human beings) coveted, not necessarily for all those reasons. Now, plenty of human beings feel perfectly fine never crossing paths with gold in their lifetimes. >>
Gold crosses everybody's path, but such people just don't realize it. Like yourself, typing on a computer with gold plated circuit board processors. Gold is so useful it is ubiquitous, but invisible to most.
Gold's value IS based on faith. If it isn't please enlighten us all as to why it's value is what it is.
Gold's value is based on about 5,000 years of historical experience. You don't need faith to know that your gold is worth something today, and it will be worth something tomorrow.
Paper currency is based on trust in a somewhat untrustworthy entity that changes the rules to insure its own survival without much regard for its taxpaying workers.
Who knows? The dollar might last awhile longer. And maybe it won't. I have no such concerns with gold bullion.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
All BB s questions and personal definitions are a prime example of skirting the truth, asking irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with the foundational principal that gold is value/money, just weights and measures, and his "facts" don't change principles...
principles never change, now that's a truth to live by...
It's tough to know how the loss of gold would be dealt by those who own it. You're talking about future events to which any number of things could happen. But in such a theoretical situation, mankind would deal with it and move on. You make it seem like they would set off nuclear bombs because life would be so difficult. You presume that there has to be some serious bean counting going on afterwards. Bottom line, if it just evaporated, people would deal with it. What else COULD they do? But it wouldn't impede transportation, food, shelter, entertainment or a litany of other things that actually provide productive use to society. Gold is in an of itself a useless rock. Yes, it could be useful for a lot of things but not at its cost nor the fact that it is too rare. The only real effect it has is its value. And that value is sole ascribed by human beings on FAITH ALONE. That's it. Those are all facts. You can choose to be blind and deny the OBVIOUS.
As for the poll, I love how you try to spin it. As if the placement really mattered here. When that much of a percentage in a PM forum calls it at least effectively useless, then gold's use is obviously very questionable. Because if it was anywhere near "fact" that it was that useful, you'd have virtually no one voting that way. The better question is to ask yourself how many would have voted that way 100 years ago. And how people would vote 100 years from now. >>
And for the umpteenth time you have misquoted me, and failed to deliver anything of factual basis on your own. On one hand you state it would be tough to tell how future events would be if gold disappeared. Then you immediately follow up without analysis and say "mankind would deal with it." This is not supporting your various talking points. Sure, mankind has dealt with the fall of the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the collapse of various empires and currencies in the past 600 years, a couple of world wars, etc. They always deal with it. There's no alternative but to deal with it. Where did you get the the idea that I stated "nuclear bombs" would go off with the disappearance of gold. What I did say was that the nations that held a high percentage of their wealth in gold would be seriously affected (Germany being one of those). That's hardly a declaration of nuclear armageddon. You do have a way of distorting things to the extreme to deflect away from your lack of substantiation. So, you don't think gold disappearing tomorrow would disrupt "entertainment" in Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, India, and China? Everyone would keep on heading to the movie theaters, sports venues, ski slopes, cruise ships, night clubs-dancing-fancy dinners, etc. despite all their gold wealth disappearing? If all your own bank accounts went to zero overnight how much of your 2014 entertainment would remain on your 2015 schedule? The earth and all its inhabitants only have value because mankind assigns each component a "value" based on the best (or worst) information available.
If you didn't like this POLL feel free to run one over on the Coin Forum where gold is more challenged......or better yet the Tim Allen Tool Forum or Jay Leno Classic Car blog. You have your ball back again.
Just what percent of the world's population do you think even owns any gold in ANY form? It's very likely that BILLIONS of people have never even laid eyes on gold in person.
This statement is ludicrous and is a prime example of Baseball swinging at a bad pitch. I would say the vast majority of Americans have all put their eyes on gold wedding bands and jewelry worn by their parents, relatives, their siblings, their school friends or teachers, their work partners, etc. And this is in a country where gold is not favored as wealth or an alternative currency. It's probably a higher percentage in India, China, and Europe. I'll give a pass to 0-2 year old babies who haven't yet understood their world. But most any person older than 2 years has picked up on a wedding band or jewelry being worn by their parents and attempted to grab it or remove it. Most any person in the 5th grade or beyond has a workable understanding that gold means something and is worth something. This same notion is probably even more prevalent overseas as weddings and family events are often decked out with the primary recipients adorned in gold and silver jewelry. In my mind it's very UNLIKELY that "BILLIONs of people have never laid eyes on gold in person?" (a minimum of 28.5%). Which planet are you talking about? 4 BILL or more of the world's population is in Asia were the years events and festivities often center around gold (wedding season, holidays, etc.). If your statement doesn't even hold true in the US where <20% of the population is under age 15, how is going to hold overseas where gold is even more highly prized as wealth? I would estimate that 94% of all US citizens have laid eyes on gold in person (those age 5 or older).
What percent of the world's population owns gold? (it seems you're suggesting gold is rare because so few individuals own any significant quanities). If you do this exercise per family it's probably on the order of 70-90% ownership. There are probably out of the way places in the world where precious metal jewelry has yet to make it. But, those are dwindling fast. More than likely someone from the more civilized world has shown up at those remote locations and displayed gold jewelry to them without realizing it (ie they laid eyes on it). If your typical Asian or European family has any savings, there's a good chance some of it will be in gold, even if just a ounce or a few ounces. The odds are even better if those nations have experienced major failures in their currencies in the past 100 years. Another way to ask this question is how many of the world's population owns platinum, diamonds, fissionable uranium, rare art, $1,000 rare coins or other collectibles, shares in Berkshire Hathaway, Google or Priceline, a tropical island, a private jet or yacht, a private country club membership, etc. Just because most people in the world don't own these things doesn't diminish their utility, desirability or value. Another straw argument. It seems with each passing day your statements get only more ridiculous. It never ceases to amaze me that you consistently acknowledge "gold facts" that "everyone" is aware of....then immediately proceed to try and refute them showing that you clearly aren't aware of them...or don't believe them. I've attached a gold quiz and gold facts for your edification.
If we could harness wind or the sun for power, would we might assign a value to this , and market this power ? Wouldn't some say "this is a gold mine" ?
That's a simple answer. Mother nature offers up all sorts of "gold" to those who know how to make it useful. So the question should not be "is gold useless ? " Rather how useful is it ?
<< <i>....As for the BILLIONS of people who have not laid eyes on gold, you ridiculously use American experiences to support the opposite viewpoint. That is ignorant to say the least. You really believe that all those Africans and Indians and Chinese and so many third world nations spend their time seeing gold. Who knows what the exact number is but its undoubtedly a very high number. >>
There's not a SINGLE truth in what you just said. Tell us from which particular nations these "BILLIONS" of people come from that have never seen a single piece of gold in any form in their entire lives. Considering that China and India combine for around 2.6 BILL people, you're going to need the majority of them to have "never seen" gold. Quite a feat imo. Some people just have the uncanny ability to not think until long after they've finished typing. Baseball must think that Chinese, Indians, and African live so far away from civilization that not once in their life do they receive a gift of jewelry (or see someone that has), never have looked in a merchant's window that was selling a gold product, never saw anyone in their village or region that owned a modest piece of gold jewelry, never once saw a well-off person walk by adorned with metal, never attended a wedding, funeral, or other major social event in their lives, never attended a museum - flea/antique market, temple/church/shrine/place of worship, etc. where gold items could easily be displayed or viewed. Ever hear of the Indian wedding season and its relationship with gold? Or how about that the Chinese traditionally buy gold presents in the run-up to the Lunar New Year? I think it's time for another POLL.........lol.
How many people currently living on planet earth have never seen a single gold item in their entire lifetimes:
1. BILLIONS (ie >2.0 BILL)...the world's population is approx 7.1 BILL (4.3 BILL Asia, 1.1 BILL Africa, 1.0 BILL America's, 0.75 BILL Europe). 2. <1 BILL 3. <500 MILL 4. <250 MILL
There just isn't anywhere near enough to back a fraction of today's economies let alone as it grows.
Probably the same argument that was used by some in 1971 when the US had as much gold as they do today. Over 40 years later and it's still probably no more accurate. With world gold currently valued at $6.6 TRILL, there's enough gold to back currencies at a 2-5% fractional rate if nations thought it was worth doing (otc derivative's "debt money" excluded). But that's not the issue. The US decided back in 1971-1973 to get rid of any remaining vestiges of a gold standard not because it couldn't work, and not because there wasn't enough gold in the world, but because they didn't really want to be tied down to one. The last effective gold standard was removed in 1914. Even today's fiat currency standards are a fractional system, yet they function despite much larger economies and emerging market growth. Whether or not there could again be a formal gold standard is irrelevant when discussing the current "usefulness" of gold today. I've already voted against the return of a formal gold standard as it ultimately comes down to whether a nation's banks will cheat on any particular assigned "standard." The current 100% fiat money standard has been abused (hard to believe, huh) by the introduction of $1.1 QUADRILLION in otc derivatives that function as a form of unregulated "debt money" between the world's largest banks.
Gold is no longer currency and will IMO never be again.
Everything you've said is only your opinion. You have nothing to offer when confronted with known history and fact.
It's not a bias on my part, but math that won't allow it.
It's your OPINION, as stated above.
There just isn't anywhere near enough to back a fraction of today's economies let alone as it grows. It doesn't even matter if we set the price of an ounce to $1 million dollars. At SOME point, and not THAT far off in the future, the math catches up.
I'm pretty sure that you are a banking representative with a big-government Keynesian agenda to push. What you're stating here is the usual tripe that we can't survive without government-induced inflation, "for the good of the economy".
This reveals your lack of understanding.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Gold's value IS based on faith. If it isn't please enlighten us all as to why it's value is what it is.
Gold's value is based on about 5,000 years of historical experience. You don't need faith to know that your gold is worth something today, and it will be worth something tomorrow.
Paper currency is based on trust in a somewhat untrustworthy entity that changes the rules to insure its own survival without much regard for its taxpaying workers.
Who knows? The dollar might last awhile longer. And maybe it won't. I have no such concerns with gold bullion. >>
The problem against gold is that for most of the 5,000 years, it was used as currency. Hence, it defined money. The times when it didn't way back when was a barter system. Gold is no longer currency and will IMO never be again. It's not a bias on my part, but math that won't allow it. There just isn't anywhere near enough to back a fraction of today's economies let alone as it grows. It doesn't even matter if we set the price of an ounce to $1 million dollars. At SOME point, and not THAT far off in the future, the math catches up. >>
You have no clue how sound money even functioned . You seem to think that the amount of gold was a hard cap on the amount of currency and its not so. Today's economy is a series of bubbles inside of bubbles . The right pin to pop those bubbles will leave the new economy that remains at a tiny fraction of what the current phony number is.
Its a mistake to equate all things in terms of dollars . A dog walker business plus a nail salon worth X total dollars is not the same as equal dollar amount of bulldozers and houses .
The dog walkers and nail salons can disappear at any time and no one will miss them . The same is not true for real items of value. Our present economy is chock full of meaningless fluff that no one will ever miss. A trillion dollars in electronic deposits can disappear in the blink of an eye just as easily. It will be as if they never existed when it happens.
Don't assume because the average joe of today doesn't highly value gold that he is correct. A more deluded populace has probably never existed anywhere.
Most things anyone says are an opinion. However, it isn't an opinion to state that there is no functional way to back fiat currency with gold. If I've revealed any lack of understanding, please enlighten us all as to how it would be done.
It was done for years. It evolved from a system of warehouse receipts and real bills into a fractional reserve system that was still backed by gold. Then it became a Ponzi scheme run by a corrupt banking system tied to an out of control debt-based government finance system that favors political cronies.
Nothing backs the financial system now except government dictates and threats emanating from a tax collection system that has become a political tool for creating fear.
When there's no accountability, corruption is inevitable. A gold-back currency isn't essential, but accountability is. Gold, and routine audits can be one way of insuring accountability, but it's not the only way. For awhile, the FASB did some good, but it corrupted itself under political pressure.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Gold has served me well,for my dental crowns. No compaints. In fact my teeth may be worth more than my car,at least before the drop in price. Sorry double post.Please ignore.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
Concerning your comments about backing the currency. Your notion is entirely laughable. You’re stating that right from the start that it only would only back 3-5%. As if that is really any sort of “backing” at all. What does that really get you compared to 0% at the end of the day? It’s hardly any difference between the two.
Once again, Baseball puts a foot in their mouth and says something that makes no sense (ie there's no difference between 0% vs. 5%). I wonder if bankers would see any problem with giving depositors 5% on their money rather than 0.2%? After all, both numbers are essentially the same according to Baseball. Clearly, they've never heard of a gold cover clause, which was basically in effect before the gold window was effectively closed in 1971. Imagine how much gold the US would have had to buy since 1971 to keep pace (at "only" 5% of the broad money supply increase or 5% of the sovereign debt increase)? Since 1971 M2 money supply is up by 17X while the national debt has risen 44X. You don't think 5% of those amounts would make a difference? Rather than the 8,133 tonnes of gold that has been held for the past 43 years, it would had to have been ramped up to 15,000 - 18,000 tonnes). Because the central banks of the world have not added large amounts of gold to balance the 40+ years of the fiat money bonanza, the price of gold has compensated in price.
Gold's price could go to literally anything to balance sovereign debts and money supplies. It's not about "how much" there is, but merely what is the required price to balance things out? There's no limit on what price could be assigned. And with 171,000 tonnes of it out there, there's enough to do the job. To say that 5% is really near 0% is close to saying that the use of a fractional reserve currency with a multiplier of 5% is basically zero too. I'd bet a central banker would get a good laugh from that statement. Baseball should do a little reading on the subject of a "gold cover clause," fractional ratios, rate compounding, etc. Who would have thought that 0% is the new 5%? I never got that memo....until today. Interesting that Baseball doesn't have any problem with about only 10% of the money supply being represented as actual circulating notes, yet clings to the misguided notion that gold would have to exist in 100% quantity as the "money supply."
That fact that a 3-5% gold cover clause would theoretically work to restrain govt's from excessive money creation doesn't mean I would support such a clause. There's the little thing about checks and balances not to mention having honest bankers and politicians that wouldn't cheat on the standard. Considering that the TBTF banks have created a $1 QUAD alternative currency system outside of the one authorized via Congress doesn't give me much hope that ANY monetary standard would ever be adhered to.
I feel like I'm in the 1980 presidential election. Roadrunner = RR. Baseball = Jimmy Carter.
Governor Baseball...........there you go again.
Baseball makes an interesting comment about editing posts, something I've done around here since day 1, a trait I've learned since writing my first term paper probably going back to grade school. You never get it right the first time, the second, or even the third. In college I usually have made dozens of redo's to my term papers. There are always better arguments, better facts, and better ways of wording things the more you think about it. Mr. Baseball has clearly proven he doesn't think, not in the least. He rips off a blustery response w/o a single fact or any substantiation. No doubt if I debated like that I wouldn't ever need to go back and edit a thing...lol. That's just mindless batter without an ounce of thought involved. I guess when one of your favorite past times is following the WWE that researching monetary theory and history is not one of your strong suits. But, I have more pride in my work than he does. Typing 30 wpm and not checking my work until after I've laid down the first draft often leads to errors, especially in grammar, spelling, and word usage. If that's a fault, it's one I've always prided myself on. What I wouldn't be proud of is if I tended to never edit a post in a thread where lots of thought and research are required (ie an indication you do no thinking or research, and that you are satisfied with a first draft).
I'd link the live quote from the 1980 presidential debate but UTube links don't work well here. If someone else can link that, it would be appreciated.
Too funny Gov. Baseball. Considering I drove nuclear submarines around the ocean as OOD I think I'll put my ability to think on my feet in tactical and difficult situations at least on the same level as your typical WWE "crisis."
Your latest "argument" includes Star Trek technology. What's a replicator have to do with the usefulness of gold? Are you going to discuss the replication of Tribbles next? The 3-5% gold cover did work. Go research it. I'd bet you didn't spend a second researching "gold cover clause" or gold certificate ratio. The more bluster you blather doesn't make your opinion any less wrong. I took 4 years of advanced Mathematics at college so I understand how you might have been stumped by a SIMPLE middle math school problem. I don't think you'd recognize a fact if it hit in you in the face. It is true that any gold standard (or fractional reserve gold standard) wouldn't work today because the very bankers placed there to regulate it, would cheat on it. So what else is new? This doesn't in the least invalidate any the of the arguments that gold is useful and that CB's hold 32,000 tonnes of it....apparently because they are stupid and you are smart. You've apparently failed 5th grade mathematics because 0% isn't even remotely close to 5%. QED.
<< <i>Too funny Gov. Baseball. Considering I drove nuclear submarines around the ocean as OOD I think I'll put my ability to think on my feet in tactical and difficult situations at least on the same level as your typical WWE "crisis."
Your latest "argument" includes Star Trek technology. What's a replicator have to do with the usefulness of gold? Are you going to discuss the replication of Tribbles next? The 3-5% gold cover did work. Go research it. I'd bet you didn't spend a second researching "gold cover clause" or gold certificate ratio. The more bluster you blather doesn't make your opinion any less wrong. I took 4 years of advanced Mathematics at college so I understand how you might have been stumped by a SIMPLE middle math school problem. I don't think you'd recognize a fact if it hit in you in the face. It is true that any gold standard (or fractional reserve gold standard) wouldn't work today because the very bankers placed there to regulate it, would cheat on it. So what else is new? This doesn't in the least invalidate any the of the arguments that gold is useful and that CB's hold 32,000 tonnes of it....apparently because they are stupid and you are smart. You've apparently failed 5th grade mathematics because 0% isn't even remotely close to 5%. QED.
And Gov. Baseball.....there you go again. >>
This is what schooling a minor leaguer looks like.
<< <i> This is what schooling a minor leaguer looks like. >>
All I can think is NO ONE would know better than YOU! >>
Roadrunner has schooled you at almost every point, and you are not going to understand or accept why and how gold is useful. I can't debate it with you any longer because I realize no matter what facts are presented, you will come back and say everyone else has opinions while your comments are FACTS.
May I ask what you do for a living? It might give us an understanding of your ideology.
<< <i>Good for you. And yet, your repeated juvenile references repeatedly show your thinking abilities. It’s irconic and sad that you would talk about “debates” and making reference to a presidential debate. I didn’t know they allowed so many mulligans in a presidential debate. I think you’ve overwhelmingly proven here, including by YOUR own admission, that you are completely incapable of a real debate as you need a first and second and third (and as far as I can tell), an infinite amount of chances to get your point across. Funny, I never saw Ronald Reagan doing that. Now HE could debate. roadrunner, I knew well of Ronald Reagan. I was a great admirer of his. Believe me, you’re no Ronald Reagan. >>
School me on what "irconic" means. Despite your dozens of posts here (most of them just one or two sentences) you haven't added a single thing of substance since it started. Not a single new thing that wasn't hashed out in the previous thread.
And for the kicker, what part of POLL only did you not understand in my original post? Clearly, you were looking for trouble....and found it for the 3rd time in 2014.....losing all 3 debates.
No doubt you didn't see Reagan do that. It's only one of the most famous presidential debate quotes of the past 50 years. You clearly didn't "know well of RR." And if you're going to use the Lloyd Bentsen quote, at least give the guy his due and quote it correctly. But with your gun slinging, no thinking, no fact checking mentality, I'm not surprised. "Irconic" things don't happen to you when you edit....lol.
Comments
I told him the gold will outlast the paper. If there were a sale on paper notes and gold that had both gone through a fire, " Tell me who , in their right mind would show up with a shovel to scoop up ashes ? "
As our dear Cohodk has shown numerous times, it's all about the time frame. Gold was a fabulous store of value from 2000-2012. It's still up 4.5X since 2000 so that's not exactly trash. The stock market was a store of loss from 1929-1954, 1966-1982, 1998-2009. All lengthy periods.
The US dollar is a symbol used all over the world. People know and understand its denominations and value. Gold has a limited audience. The common person doesn't even know its value or how to use it if they had to (or most governments for that matter because they have over diluted its delusional value).
It was just a few years ago with the dollar index in the lower 70's where supermodels and most of the world were trashing the dollar. They didn't want to accept them in transactions. They wanted gold or Euros, anything but depreciating dollars (remember the huge dollar slide from 2001 to 2009 where the dollar index fell from 121-74?....or how about the slide from 1986 where it reached an all time peak of 165?). This view is very US-centric. I would say with over 2/3 of the world's population residing in Asia and Europe that gold has a wide audience...and if anything the dollar is less understood. Most common people around the world understand precious metals and jewelry. They are quite leery of any paper currency having been through numerous currency crisis over the centuries.
I would agree that Americans are dollar-phobes and do not understand gold as an alternative currency. Gold is a symbol all over the world, that's why the CB's store 32,000 tonnes of it. Call them delusional like Alan Greenspan if you will, but the proof is in their vaults. There are less than $1 TRILL in FRN's circulating outside the USA. How is that a symbol? Most people in the world probably don't own a single Federal Reserve Note. There's only enough for 18c per person on average. Gold is 3X more available than FRN's overseas and is probably more widely owned. The American view on gold (and currencies) doesn't translate well overseas.
Jewelry is an instant lose of value (not that a ridiculously 1000% overprice gold item has any real value except being a dramatic loss). I'd rather have a .999 bar sitting.
I would agree...if buying from US retail stores. If I want to buy very nice and slightly used 18-22K gold jewelry for essentially spot I can do that from several coin dealers.
Losing lots of money on "new" jewelry is an American view where our jewelry stores typically mark up gold jewelry by 2X to 10X. Americans tend to buy jewelry for emotions and not investment. That is not the same overseas where you see a lot of 24K jewelry items that are rarely worn and function as a store of money. It's not that hard to find Asian 18K-24K "new" gold jewelry being sold near spot prices with a tiny premium for "workmanship." It's not like the USA at all. Gold is a whole different animal in Asia.
<< <i>Nearly 1 of 3 in a precious metals chatroom think gold is no better than essentially worthless. Impressive. No court in this country would convict baseball. >>
Maybe the next poll should be of those 1/3 who feel gold is no better than essentially worthless, how many of them own gold or silver bullion? That might have impressive results too. The results are running around what I thought they would following a 3-4 year bear market, though I actually expected more votes for "useless." How do you think the results would have been in Jan-March 2008 or August 2011 or even Sept 2012?
Once again, if you lost every spec of gold on earth, mankind would move on just fine immediately afterward. There might be some slight disturbances here and there but absolutely no "shock" to society in any effective way. That is effective useless as useless can get. Gold's PRIMARY and INTENDED purpose (or "use") by those who mine it, buy it, own it is to let it sit there and do NOTHING. That is PREDOMINANTLY the INTENDED and ACCEPTED and DESIRED "use". And you really want to debate and take "polls" about such an obvious fact???
The poll so far is running >2/3 that gold around the world does not just "sit there and do nothing." That's why polls are taken. The above statement above is apparently not an "obvious fact" to 2/3 of the readers here.
A grand jury only needs a simple majority to indict. Some cases are heard before a panel of judges. The US law making and election system for the most part works on a majority. No one is trying to convict Baseball, though some of the major points he has stated (like the one above) would surely challenge a knowledgeable panel/jury not to find 12-0 against such a statement. I would agree with the above statement if it were changed to this:
Gold's PRIMARY and INTENDED purpose (or "use") by those who mine it, is to sell it. It then generally just sits around until required to perform any of its specific functions. Some of those functions occur while it is just sitting.
<< <i>Gold's PRIMARY and INTENDED purpose (or "use") by those who mine it, is to sell it. It then generally just sits around until required to perform any of its specific functions. Some of those functions occur while it is just sitting. >>
The most accurate statement so far. Which would place it in the "quasi useful" category.
<< <i>I suppose you've never been bullish on Google either, then? >>
Google is a brilliant and well managed company. Much better value (at a lower market cap) than the venture that Zuckerberg swiped from the Winklevoss twins.
<< <i>But the FACT remains that gold in and of itself is virtually useless. If you want to hide behind the fact that it can be sold for money and used for anything, that fact is obvious when I state time and again that it has value. But that value is solely from the mere notion that people ascribe value to it, once again. Gold in and of itself is virtually useless. And as I state time and again, mankind would not miss it essentially AT ALL if it disappeared forever. >>
No, it is not a "fact", it is your opinion based on your subjective values of what you deem to be useful and what is not. Is something useless because it cannot be fashioned into some widget for consumption? Gold is used in dentristry, in electronics, glass making, it is used in aerospace and computers. How exactly is that "useless"?
Gold has monetary, cultural and artistic / aesthetic components that are all extremely useful to those who find value in them even though you do not, or if you limit something's value to its base utility or consumptive value.
Tyler
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I suppose you've never been bullish on Google either, then? >>
Google is a brilliant and well managed company. Much better value (at a lower market cap) than the venture that Zuckerberg swiped from the Winklevoss twins. >>
Google has a higher market cap that Facebook. And in fairness to Zuckerberg, it's not Google came up with the idea of search engines. There were several WIDELY used SEs prior to Google, not the least of which was Yahoo. >>
Do you want to debate which Matzo is better for making Matzo Balls too?
<< <i>It's been acknowledged time again that it has limited uses in industry. But the FACT remains that the OVERWHELMING percentage of it sits around and THAT IS the primary, desired and intended "use". TO BE USELESS. THAT is the actual "useful" intent by those who buy or own it.
If gold were priced and valued based on demand and supply driven by its actual legitimate uses, it would trade for peanuts. One COULD actually "use" it functionally for a ton of different things, but it isn't remotely cost effective to do so and quite frankly, there isn't anywhere near enough of it to do so for long. >>
Baseball, as smart as you are, your reasoning on this issue is severely limited in scope. It is not necessary that an object or thing be put to work like some pack mule to be useful. Gold has been deemed, amongst a host of positive qualities, as a monetary instrument. As such, gold in the forms of bars, bullion and coin, the very purpose of such, is to be a store of value. Sitting there doing "nothing" is absolutely valuable and useful for this specific purpose. Gold has the very best qualities for this role, and humans have chosen gold to fulfill that role, again, amongst many roles gold plays culturally, monetarily and artistically / aesthetically, with a minor role in industry.
Gold has a very high demand, else why would miners spend time and energy mining and refining it? The reasons may not be apparent or valuable to your subjective viewpoint, but to hundreds of millions of others (700 million Indians for example), gold is extremely useful and desireable for a host of reasons that transcend gold's usefulness as some consumable commodity in industry.
Treating gold as other commodities and how it "ought" to be priced based on its base utility is missing three of its four main components, focusing on the aspect of its least use; industry. Gold has qualitities and relative rarity that make it perfect for all the useful purposes and roles it fulfills now.
Tyler
<< <i>Roadrunner,
First you want to talk up gold’s use in jewelry and now you do a complete 180 and state that people own them just to let it sit there. What’s more, all your ranting and ravings in this thread revolve around the notion of the value of gold, NOT real necessary uses. And I’m not sure what your juvenile objective is in starting this poll regardless of the outcome. It says NOTHING one way or the other, as do your posts in this thread (though you do have a lot of "useful" posts, especially in the coin forum).... >>
I've been very consistent above as all can see. I made it quite clear that jewelry of all sorts probably gets used at least once per year. In my mind that's still sitting there >95% of the time. So what? Only rantings and ravings in your mind baseball. Much of what I've presented are facts or statistics from history. There's room for interpretation but not complete dismissal. If you disagree with any of those statistics, come up with your own sources and present them. And this was supposed to be a poll until you chimed in with more barbs. I suggested the other day that you should conduct a poll to assess views on this subject. You didn't make the effort. So I did. My gift to you. Merry Christmas
It's been acknowledged time again that it has limited uses in industry. But the FACT remains that the OVERWHELMING percentage of it sits around and THAT IS the primary, desired and intended "use". TO BE USELESS. THAT is the actual "useful" intent by those who buy or own it. If gold were priced and valued based on demand and supply driven by its actual legitimate uses, it would trade for peanuts.....
This has only been acknowledged by Baseball. That fact that most gold sits (whether as jewelry, coin, or good delivery 400 oz bars) is not "USELESS." The fact that buyers purchased the gold indicates it has a USE to them. The fact that much gold sits is because of its concentrated value. If gold were solely priced on supply and demand it would be worth approx $252 or more, not peanuts. This was essentially proven in 1999-2000 when gold traded that low as pretty much just a 99.44% commodity. And that was in line with its value back (minus inflation) in the early 1970's when it was no longer part of the world's "official" monetary system. Without the London Gold Pool in the 1960's gold likely would have doubled in price much like silver did....hence around a $70 gold price in 1969 or 1971. That's probably what it would have gone to with just normal market supply and demand. Since that time inflation has increased prices approx 6X. A reasonable price today based solely on a commodity would probably be around $420. Using the CPI index from 2000 to 2014 and applying it to $252 yields about $335/oz today. So in my mind $335-$450 is probably a fair estimate of the "commodity only" price of gold today. It's not peanuts.
This statement is fine if you can back it up with some facts vs. opinion. Explain how 4 important European nations that carry 54-67% of their foreign reserves in gold would "easily" handle their gold disappearing tomorrow? It's a simple request and goes to the crux of your statement. If that statement is the litmus test then explain why losing 2/3 of ones sovereign foreign reserves doesn't matter. These countries can't print currency on their own unlike the USA. They can issue sovereign bonds though if anyone would buy them after a 2/3 haircut in their reserves. What if their remaining reserves aren't very liquid, or are not worth enough to handle short term financing concerns? Reserves disappearing mean interest rates rise on the bonds of that nation, and probably sharply So far your litmus "test" is only a litmus "opinion." As of 2012 Germany had 72% of its foreign reserves in gold (over 3,000 tonnes). I'd imagine it would bother them a wee bit to lose that.
Let’s say that Ruritania (a fictional country) is suspected of being in poor financial shape. International speculators might sell their own holdings of country’s currency, or sell short or sell in forward trades. This will tend to depress the value of the currency. Other speculators may see the attack and join in, further weakening the currency. The country could let it’s exchange rate fall, but many countries don’t like this option. A falling exchange rate makes imports more expensive to its citizens and may also disrupt financing that Ruritanian companies receive from foreign banks.
If Ruritania has sufficient foreign reserves, it could start buying its own currency, selling its foreign currencies to pay for its purchases. With deep reserves, the country could thwart the speculators. In fact, deep reserves would probably prevent the speculation in the first place. The financial speculators know that it is futile to bet against a currency backed by substantial reserves.
The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 taught many countries the value of having large reserves for foreign currencies. Most countries are now pretty heavily invested in their foreign exchange reserves. .
Seems to me a lack of reserves n(or the loss of them) can cause big problems. Russia could be in this very predicament. Unfortunately, they don't have 54-67% of their foreign reserves in gold to more easily fight off the Ruble attacks. They would have loved to been in that situation. This is one reason they've been building their gold reserves since 2006. As of 2012 they were at the 9% level. They're going to have to rely on Rubles, dollars, Yuan, Yen, Euro's, Swiss Francs, Cando's and Aussies, and whatever else they have in the bank, assuming those are easily accessed liquid funds, and not currency swaps, derivatives or other junk. The litmus test might work for iron and wood, not looking so good for gold. Some day in the future, gold will probably join those others.....but, not yet. First step would be getting rid of fiat currencies that are heavily manipulated and consistently devalued (ie an effective one world currency/exchange system that has adequate controls).
Pathetic...
<< <i> All your comments run around in circles and is based on the same theme. That gold has value. No one is debating that so I'm not sure what you're point is. Your comments about "reserves" over and over proves nothing about the fact that gold in and of itself is useless. Once again, it has value and in certain limited transactions, it can be used as payment, or in the very least, sold to use as money. Money, which actually is quite useful. And even that "value" is entirely predicated on RELIGION. There is no rational basis for it. If it actually had any inherent value, then a person stranded on an island should choose a pound of gold over a gun with ammo. But NO ONE would do that because its only predominant "use" is that it has value in and of itself. NOT that it can really be used for anything fundamental. >>
None of this addressed your very own "litmus test" on gold. At least if I stated some theory, I would be at least try to defend that position. Please answer my question on how the European nations with 54-72% in gold foreign reserves would handle losing their gold overnight? This is your debate and your litmus test. Please keep from avoiding the real issue and provide your logic on how those nations would see nothing more than a little "hiccup." We need some hard facts, logic and economic reasoning....not another "story" as you typed above. Merry Litmus.
<< <i>
<< <i>Lol, so now BB new theory - ignorance = uselessness...
Pathetic... >>
I'm not sure how that can be my theory. I never called YOU useless. >>
I guess at least I can tell, don't know if everyone else can, but your lack of reading comprehension and conflicting statements are quite amazing...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I suppose you've never been bullish on Google either, then? >>
Google is a brilliant and well managed company. Much better value (at a lower market cap) than the venture that Zuckerberg swiped from the Winklevoss twins. >>
Google has a higher market cap that Facebook. And in fairness to Zuckerberg, it's not Google came up with the idea of search engines. There were several WIDELY used SEs prior to Google, not the least of which was Yahoo. >>
Do you want to debate which Matzo is better for making Matzo Balls too? >>
Everyone who favors them knows Kartoffelland makes the best Potato Dumplings..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
No, it is not a "fact", it is your opinion based on your subjective values of what you deem to be useful and what is not. Is something useless because it cannot be fashioned into some widget for consumption? Gold is used in dentristry, in electronics, glass making, it is used in aerospace and computers. How exactly is that "useless"?
Gold has monetary, cultural and artistic / aesthetic components that are all extremely useful to those who find value in them even though you do not, or if you limit something's value to its base utility or consumptive value.
Tyler
<< It's been acknowledged time again that it has limited uses in industry. But the FACT remains that the OVERWHELMING percentage of it sits around and THAT IS the primary, desired and intended "use". TO BE USELESS. THAT is the actual "useful" intent by those who buy or own it.
If gold were priced and valued based on demand and supply driven by its actual legitimate uses, it would trade for peanuts. One COULD actually "use" it functionally for a ton of different things, but it isn't remotely cost effective to do so and quite frankly, there isn't anywhere near enough of it to do so for long. >>
Baseball, as smart as you are, your reasoning on this issue is severely limited in scope. It is not necessary that an object or thing be put to work like some pack mule to be useful. Gold has been deemed, amongst a host of positive qualities, as a monetary instrument. As such, gold in the forms of bars, bullion and coin, the very purpose of such, is to be a store of value. Sitting there doing "nothing" is absolutely valuable and useful for this specific purpose. Gold has the very best qualities for this role, and humans have chosen gold to fulfill that role, again, amongst many roles gold plays culturally, monetarily and artistically / aesthetically, with a minor role in industry.
Gold has a very high demand, else why would miners spend time and energy mining and refining it? The reasons may not be apparent or valuable to your subjective viewpoint, but to hundreds of millions of others (700 million Indians for example), gold is extremely useful and desireable for a host of reasons that transcend gold's usefulness as some consumable commodity in industry.
Treating gold as other commodities and how it "ought" to be priced based on its base utility is missing three of its four main components, focusing on the aspect of its least use; industry. Gold has qualitities and relative rarity that make it perfect for all the useful purposes and roles it fulfills now.
Tyler
Tyler, thank you for your clear and straightforward comments. It's kinda crazy when you can give many clear examples of the usefulness of gold and then have baseball come right back and say that gold is useless. Obviously, there's something going on here but I'm at a loss to say exactly what it's about. I've seldom seen anyone work so hard to push an opinion when so many facts and examples stand in his way.
It's comical, but concerning when someone can repeatedly say that gold has value but no usefulness. Almost like what a central banker would have you believe.
Merry Christmas everyone!
I knew it would happen.
Charles III Album
Charles III Portrait Set
Charles IV Album
Charles IV Portrait Set
Spanish Colonial Pillar Set
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Tyler, thank you for your clear and straightforward comments. It's kinda crazy when you can give many clear examples of the usefulness of gold and then have baseball come right back and say that gold is useless. Obviously, there's something going on here but I'm at a loss to say exactly what it's about. I've seldom seen anyone work so hard to push an opinion when so many facts and examples stand in his way.
It's comical, but concerning when someone can repeatedly say that gold has value but no usefulness. Almost like what a central banker would have you believe.
Merry Christmas everyone! >>
Well said, and I agree. Baseball has been schooled in this thread no matter how much he wants to deny it. The sad part is he doesn't understand his opinion is NOT fact.
Gold is money. Real wealth. Unlike paper, that is only 'perceived wealth', backed by empty promises that can disappear in the blink of an eye, as history has proven.
Nothing is useless if it gives someone a sense of security or fear. A rock was useless too…. until it got in the hand of David who slew Goliath.
<< <i>Much the same, guns are useless. But a well armed society is a polite society. >>
Seems to be less true today.
1. Useless in all respects. Like the definition below.
2. Effectively useless, having only very minor utility or value in today's world.
3. Useful in today's world, having a number of significant uses without suitable or ready replacements.
Foreign gold reserves
The world's first effective gold standard lasted a shorter period of time than the current 43 yr old fiat money system
<< <i>In 100 years, there has been a drastic change in how gold is perceived. >>
Not true. Gold is still coveted for its beauty, indestructability, durability and store of wealth.
I chose #2 because I think humans like to decorate themselves. I also think at times it can be a very good (useful) investment while at other times a very poor (useless) investment. Gold held by central banks means more to those (banks) that have seen their countries occupied and conquered than those that have not. However, holding gold has never kept a country from being overrun.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
It's value is constant
The amount of currency you need to purchase it does change
And as it requires more and more, you understand the value you
Have in that worthless paper
<< <i>Golds value never changes
It's value is constant
The amount of currency you need to purchase it does change
And as it requires more and more, you understand the value you
Have in that worthless paper >>
Yes, if you take what something cost in gold 100 years ago, it still costs about the same today. In paper terms, that isn't true. That proves exactly how paper is not real wealth because history has proven it is always devalued by the 'printers'.
lol, gold is too rare to be useful? lol.
The only real effect it has is its value.
If it is a real effect, it's not useless.
And that value is sole ascribed by human beings on FAITH ALONE. That's it.
You're confusing paper fiat with gold here. The paper is backed by the "full faith & credit of the US". I don't see any gold coins or bars that have to be stamped with a "promise". How many times has any government reneged on their "promises"? In contrast, an ounce of gold is what it is, and you don't have to get a special note from the nanny state to ascertain it's value.
Those are all facts.
What you've stated aren't even facts, especially when you contradict your own statements.
You're welcome.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In 100 years, there has been a drastic change in how gold is perceived. >>
Not true. Gold is still coveted for its beauty, indestructability, durability and store of wealth. >>
100 years ago, it was universally (by human beings) coveted, not necessarily for all those reasons. Now, plenty of human beings feel perfectly fine never crossing paths with gold in their lifetimes. >>
You certainly have a well defined handle on 7,000,000,000,000 individuals. In countries like India which are growing from third world to 1st world economic status, gold has and certainly is coveted as a valuable store of wealth.
<< <i>
100 years ago, it was universally (by human beings) coveted, not necessarily for all those reasons. Now, plenty of human beings feel perfectly fine never crossing paths with gold in their lifetimes. >>
Gold crosses everybody's path, but such people just don't realize it. Like yourself, typing on a computer with gold plated circuit board processors. Gold is so useful it is ubiquitous, but invisible to most.
Gold in industry
Gold in industry
Tyler
Gold's value is based on about 5,000 years of historical experience. You don't need faith to know that your gold is worth something today, and it will be worth something tomorrow.
Paper currency is based on trust in a somewhat untrustworthy entity that changes the rules to insure its own survival without much regard for its taxpaying workers.
Who knows? The dollar might last awhile longer. And maybe it won't. I have no such concerns with gold bullion.
I knew it would happen.
principles never change, now that's a truth to live by...
<< <i>Roadrunner,
It's tough to know how the loss of gold would be dealt by those who own it. You're talking about future events to which any number of things could happen. But in such a theoretical situation, mankind would deal with it and move on. You make it seem like they would set off nuclear bombs because life would be so difficult. You presume that there has to be some serious bean counting going on afterwards. Bottom line, if it just evaporated, people would deal with it. What else COULD they do? But it wouldn't impede transportation, food, shelter, entertainment or a litany of other things that actually provide productive use to society. Gold is in an of itself a useless rock. Yes, it could be useful for a lot of things but not at its cost nor the fact that it is too rare. The only real effect it has is its value. And that value is sole ascribed by human beings on FAITH ALONE. That's it. Those are all facts. You can choose to be blind and deny the OBVIOUS.
As for the poll, I love how you try to spin it. As if the placement really mattered here. When that much of a percentage in a PM forum calls it at least effectively useless, then gold's use is obviously very questionable. Because if it was anywhere near "fact" that it was that useful, you'd have virtually no one voting that way. The better question is to ask yourself how many would have voted that way 100 years ago. And how people would vote 100 years from now. >>
And for the umpteenth time you have misquoted me, and failed to deliver anything of factual basis on your own. On one hand you state it would be tough to tell how future events would be if gold disappeared. Then you immediately follow up without analysis and say "mankind would deal with it." This is not supporting your various talking points. Sure, mankind has dealt with the fall of the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the collapse of various empires and currencies in the past 600 years, a couple of world wars, etc. They always deal with it. There's no alternative but to deal with it. Where did you get the the idea that I stated "nuclear bombs" would go off with the disappearance of gold. What I did say was that the nations that held a high percentage of their wealth in gold would be seriously affected (Germany being one of those). That's hardly a declaration of nuclear armageddon. You do have a way of distorting things to the extreme to deflect away from your lack of substantiation. So, you don't think gold disappearing tomorrow would disrupt "entertainment" in Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, India, and China? Everyone would keep on heading to the movie theaters, sports venues, ski slopes, cruise ships, night clubs-dancing-fancy dinners, etc. despite all their gold wealth disappearing? If all your own bank accounts went to zero overnight how much of your 2014 entertainment would remain on your 2015 schedule? The earth and all its inhabitants only have value because mankind assigns each component a "value" based on the best (or worst) information available.
If you didn't like this POLL feel free to run one over on the Coin Forum where gold is more challenged......or better yet the Tim Allen Tool Forum or Jay Leno Classic Car blog. You have your ball back again.
This statement is ludicrous and is a prime example of Baseball swinging at a bad pitch. I would say the vast majority of Americans have all put their eyes on gold wedding bands and jewelry worn by their parents, relatives, their siblings, their school friends or teachers, their work partners, etc. And this is in a country where gold is not favored as wealth or an alternative currency. It's probably a higher percentage in India, China, and Europe. I'll give a pass to 0-2 year old babies who haven't yet understood their world. But most any person older than 2 years has picked up on a wedding band or jewelry being worn by their parents and attempted to grab it or remove it. Most any person in the 5th grade or beyond has a workable understanding that gold means something and is worth something. This same notion is probably even more prevalent overseas as weddings and family events are often decked out with the primary recipients adorned in gold and silver jewelry. In my mind it's very UNLIKELY that "BILLIONs of people have never laid eyes on gold in person?" (a minimum of 28.5%). Which planet are you talking about? 4 BILL or more of the world's population is in Asia were the years events and festivities often center around gold (wedding season, holidays, etc.). If your statement doesn't even hold true in the US where <20% of the population is under age 15, how is going to hold overseas where gold is even more highly prized as wealth? I would estimate that 94% of all US citizens have laid eyes on gold in person (those age 5 or older).
What percent of the world's population owns gold? (it seems you're suggesting gold is rare because so few individuals own any significant quanities). If you do this exercise per family it's probably on the order of 70-90% ownership. There are probably out of the way places in the world where precious metal jewelry has yet to make it. But, those are dwindling fast. More than likely someone from the more civilized world has shown up at those remote locations and displayed gold jewelry to them without realizing it (ie they laid eyes on it). If your typical Asian or European family has any savings, there's a good chance some of it will be in gold, even if just a ounce or a few ounces. The odds are even better if those nations have experienced major failures in their currencies in the past 100 years. Another way to ask this question is how many of the world's population owns platinum, diamonds, fissionable uranium, rare art, $1,000 rare coins or other collectibles, shares in Berkshire Hathaway, Google or Priceline, a tropical island, a private jet or yacht, a private country club membership, etc. Just because most people in the world don't own these things doesn't diminish their utility, desirability or value. Another straw argument. It seems with each passing day your statements get only more ridiculous. It never ceases to amaze me that you consistently acknowledge "gold facts" that "everyone" is aware of....then immediately proceed to try and refute them showing that you clearly aren't aware of them...or don't believe them. I've attached a gold quiz and gold facts for your edification.
gold quiz 1
16 gold facts
Gold FAQs - check the "uses" of gold
That's a simple answer. Mother nature offers up all sorts of "gold" to those who know how to make it useful.
So the question should not be "is gold useless ? " Rather how useful is it ?
<< <i>....As for the BILLIONS of people who have not laid eyes on gold, you ridiculously use American experiences to support the opposite viewpoint. That is ignorant to say the least. You really believe that all those Africans and Indians and Chinese and so many third world nations spend their time seeing gold. Who knows what the exact number is but its undoubtedly a very high number. >>
There's not a SINGLE truth in what you just said. Tell us from which particular nations these "BILLIONS" of people come from that have never seen a single piece of gold in any form in their entire lives. Considering that China and India combine for around 2.6 BILL people, you're going to need the majority of them to have "never seen" gold. Quite a feat imo. Some people just have the uncanny ability to not think until long after they've finished typing. Baseball must think that Chinese, Indians, and African live so far away from civilization that not once in their life do they receive a gift of jewelry (or see someone that has), never have looked in a merchant's window that was selling a gold product, never saw anyone in their village or region that owned a modest piece of gold jewelry, never once saw a well-off person walk by adorned with metal, never attended a wedding, funeral, or other major social event in their lives, never attended a museum - flea/antique market, temple/church/shrine/place of worship, etc. where gold items could easily be displayed or viewed. Ever hear of the Indian wedding season and its relationship with gold? Or how about that the Chinese traditionally buy gold presents in the run-up to the Lunar New Year? I think it's time for another POLL.........lol.
How many people currently living on planet earth have never seen a single gold item in their entire lifetimes:
1. BILLIONS (ie >2.0 BILL)...the world's population is approx 7.1 BILL (4.3 BILL Asia, 1.1 BILL Africa, 1.0 BILL America's, 0.75 BILL Europe).
2. <1 BILL
3. <500 MILL
4. <250 MILL
There just isn't anywhere near enough to back a fraction of today's economies let alone as it grows.
Probably the same argument that was used by some in 1971 when the US had as much gold as they do today. Over 40 years later and it's still probably no more accurate. With world gold currently valued at $6.6 TRILL, there's enough gold to back currencies at a 2-5% fractional rate if nations thought it was worth doing (otc derivative's "debt money" excluded). But that's not the issue. The US decided back in 1971-1973 to get rid of any remaining vestiges of a gold standard not because it couldn't work, and not because there wasn't enough gold in the world, but because they didn't really want to be tied down to one. The last effective gold standard was removed in 1914. Even today's fiat currency standards are a fractional system, yet they function despite much larger economies and emerging market growth. Whether or not there could again be a formal gold standard is irrelevant when discussing the current "usefulness" of gold today. I've already voted against the return of a formal gold standard as it ultimately comes down to whether a nation's banks will cheat on any particular assigned "standard." The current 100% fiat money standard has been abused (hard to believe, huh) by the introduction of $1.1 QUADRILLION in otc derivatives that function as a form of unregulated "debt money" between the world's largest banks.
This article in Forbes doesn't think a gold standard is unworkable because of too little gold. Former FED chair Alan Greenspan has resumed his pro-gold stance from the 1960's. None of this seems to suggest something "useless."
Everything you've said is only your opinion. You have nothing to offer when confronted with known history and fact.
It's not a bias on my part, but math that won't allow it.
It's your OPINION, as stated above.
There just isn't anywhere near enough to back a fraction of today's economies let alone as it grows. It doesn't even matter if we set the price of an ounce to $1 million dollars. At SOME point, and not THAT far off in the future, the math catches up.
I'm pretty sure that you are a banking representative with a big-government Keynesian agenda to push. What you're stating here is the usual tripe that we can't survive without government-induced inflation, "for the good of the economy".
This reveals your lack of understanding.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>Gold's value IS based on faith. If it isn't please enlighten us all as to why it's value is what it is.
Gold's value is based on about 5,000 years of historical experience. You don't need faith to know that your gold is worth something today, and it will be worth something tomorrow.
Paper currency is based on trust in a somewhat untrustworthy entity that changes the rules to insure its own survival without much regard for its taxpaying workers.
Who knows? The dollar might last awhile longer. And maybe it won't. I have no such concerns with gold bullion. >>
The problem against gold is that for most of the 5,000 years, it was used as currency. Hence, it defined money. The times when it didn't way back when was a barter system. Gold is no longer currency and will IMO never be again. It's not a bias on my part, but math that won't allow it. There just isn't anywhere near enough to back a fraction of today's economies let alone as it grows. It doesn't even matter if we set the price of an ounce to $1 million dollars. At SOME point, and not THAT far off in the future, the math catches up. >>
You have no clue how sound money even functioned . You seem to think that the amount of gold was a hard cap on the amount of currency and its not so. Today's economy is a series of bubbles inside of bubbles . The right pin to pop those bubbles will leave the new economy that remains at a tiny fraction of what the current phony number is.
Its a mistake to equate all things in terms of dollars . A dog walker business plus a nail salon worth X total dollars is not the same as equal dollar amount of bulldozers and houses .
The dog walkers and nail salons can disappear at any time and no one will miss them . The same is not true for real items of value. Our present economy is chock full of meaningless fluff that no one will ever miss. A trillion dollars in electronic deposits can disappear in the blink of an eye just as easily. It will be as if they never existed when it happens.
Don't assume because the average joe of today doesn't highly value gold that he is correct. A more deluded populace has probably never existed anywhere.
If not money, gold can be easily exchanged for money.
It was done for years. It evolved from a system of warehouse receipts and real bills into a fractional reserve system that was still backed by gold. Then it became a Ponzi scheme run by a corrupt banking system tied to an out of control debt-based government finance system that favors political cronies.
Nothing backs the financial system now except government dictates and threats emanating from a tax collection system that has become a political tool for creating fear.
When there's no accountability, corruption is inevitable. A gold-back currency isn't essential, but accountability is. Gold, and routine audits can be one way of insuring accountability, but it's not the only way. For awhile, the FASB did some good, but it corrupted itself under political pressure.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>You guys are really good at visceral bashing of paper money without EVER putting forth an alternative method on a viable medium of exchange. >>
Seems that we had circulation gold and silver coinage for over 160 years before Johnson's Medicare/Caid destroyed the federal budget.
Once again, Baseball puts a foot in their mouth and says something that makes no sense (ie there's no difference between 0% vs. 5%). I wonder if bankers would see any problem with giving depositors 5% on their money rather than 0.2%? After all, both numbers are essentially the same according to Baseball. Clearly, they've never heard of a gold cover clause, which was basically in effect before the gold window was effectively closed in 1971. Imagine how much gold the US would have had to buy since 1971 to keep pace (at "only" 5% of the broad money supply increase or 5% of the sovereign debt increase)? Since 1971 M2 money supply is up by 17X while the national debt has risen 44X. You don't think 5% of those amounts would make a difference? Rather than the 8,133 tonnes of gold that has been held for the past 43 years, it would had to have been ramped up to 15,000 - 18,000 tonnes). Because the central banks of the world have not added large amounts of gold to balance the 40+ years of the fiat money bonanza, the price of gold has compensated in price.
Gold's price could go to literally anything to balance sovereign debts and money supplies. It's not about "how much" there is, but merely what is the required price to balance things out? There's no limit on what price could be assigned. And with 171,000 tonnes of it out there, there's enough to do the job. To say that 5% is really near 0% is close to saying that the use of a fractional reserve currency with a multiplier of 5% is basically zero too. I'd bet a central banker would get a good laugh from that statement. Baseball should do a little reading on the subject of a "gold cover clause," fractional ratios, rate compounding, etc. Who would have thought that 0% is the new 5%? I never got that memo....until today. Interesting that Baseball doesn't have any problem with about only 10% of the money supply being represented as actual circulating notes, yet clings to the misguided notion that gold would have to exist in 100% quantity as the "money supply."
That fact that a 3-5% gold cover clause would theoretically work to restrain govt's from excessive money creation doesn't mean I would support such a clause. There's the little thing about checks and balances not to mention having honest bankers and politicians that wouldn't cheat on the standard. Considering that the TBTF banks have created a $1 QUAD alternative currency system outside of the one authorized via Congress doesn't give me much hope that ANY monetary standard would ever be adhered to.
Governor Baseball...........there you go again.
Baseball makes an interesting comment about editing posts, something I've done around here since day 1, a trait I've learned since writing my first term paper probably going back to grade school. You never get it right the first time, the second, or even the third. In college I usually have made dozens of redo's to my term papers. There are always better arguments, better facts, and better ways of wording things the more you think about it. Mr. Baseball has clearly proven he doesn't think, not in the least. He rips off a blustery response w/o a single fact or any substantiation. No doubt if I debated like that I wouldn't ever need to go back and edit a thing...lol. That's just mindless batter without an ounce of thought involved. I guess when one of your favorite past times is following the WWE that researching monetary theory and history is not one of your strong suits. But, I have more pride in my work than he does. Typing 30 wpm and not checking my work until after I've laid down the first draft often leads to errors, especially in grammar, spelling, and word usage. If that's a fault, it's one I've always prided myself on. What I wouldn't be proud of is if I tended to never edit a post in a thread where lots of thought and research are required (ie an indication you do no thinking or research, and that you are satisfied with a first draft).
I'd link the live quote from the 1980 presidential debate but UTube links don't work well here. If someone else can link that, it would be appreciated.
Your latest "argument" includes Star Trek technology. What's a replicator have to do with the usefulness of gold? Are you going to discuss the replication of Tribbles next? The 3-5% gold cover did work. Go research it. I'd bet you didn't spend a second researching "gold cover clause" or gold certificate ratio. The more bluster you blather doesn't make your opinion any less wrong. I took 4 years of advanced Mathematics at college so I understand how you might have been stumped by a SIMPLE middle math school problem. I don't think you'd recognize a fact if it hit in you in the face. It is true that any gold standard (or fractional reserve gold standard) wouldn't work today because the very bankers placed there to regulate it, would cheat on it. So what else is new? This doesn't in the least invalidate any the of the arguments that gold is useful and that CB's hold 32,000 tonnes of it....apparently because they are stupid and you are smart. You've apparently failed 5th grade mathematics because 0% isn't even remotely close to 5%. QED.
And Gov. Baseball.....there you go again.
<< <i>Too funny Gov. Baseball. Considering I drove nuclear submarines around the ocean as OOD I think I'll put my ability to think on my feet in tactical and difficult situations at least on the same level as your typical WWE "crisis."
Your latest "argument" includes Star Trek technology. What's a replicator have to do with the usefulness of gold? Are you going to discuss the replication of Tribbles next? The 3-5% gold cover did work. Go research it. I'd bet you didn't spend a second researching "gold cover clause" or gold certificate ratio. The more bluster you blather doesn't make your opinion any less wrong. I took 4 years of advanced Mathematics at college so I understand how you might have been stumped by a SIMPLE middle math school problem. I don't think you'd recognize a fact if it hit in you in the face. It is true that any gold standard (or fractional reserve gold standard) wouldn't work today because the very bankers placed there to regulate it, would cheat on it. So what else is new? This doesn't in the least invalidate any the of the arguments that gold is useful and that CB's hold 32,000 tonnes of it....apparently because they are stupid and you are smart. You've apparently failed 5th grade mathematics because 0% isn't even remotely close to 5%. QED.
And Gov. Baseball.....there you go again. >>
This is what schooling a minor leaguer looks like.
<< <i>
<< <i>
This is what schooling a minor leaguer looks like.
All I can think is NO ONE would know better than YOU! >>
Roadrunner has schooled you at almost every point, and you are not going to understand or accept why and how gold is useful. I can't debate it with you any longer because I realize no matter what facts are presented, you will come back and say everyone else has opinions while your comments are FACTS.
May I ask what you do for a living? It might give us an understanding of your ideology.
<< <i>Good for you. And yet, your repeated juvenile references repeatedly show your thinking abilities. It’s irconic and sad that you would talk about “debates” and making reference to a presidential debate. I didn’t know they allowed so many mulligans in a presidential debate. I think you’ve overwhelmingly proven here, including by YOUR own admission, that you are completely incapable of a real debate as you need a first and second and third (and as far as I can tell), an infinite amount of chances to get your point across. Funny, I never saw Ronald Reagan doing that. Now HE could debate. roadrunner, I knew well of Ronald Reagan. I was a great admirer of his. Believe me, you’re no Ronald Reagan. >>
School me on what "irconic" means. Despite your dozens of posts here (most of them just one or two sentences) you haven't added a single thing of substance since it started. Not a single new thing that wasn't hashed out in the previous thread.
And for the kicker, what part of POLL only did you not understand in my original post? Clearly, you were looking for trouble....and found it for the 3rd time in 2014.....losing all 3 debates.
No doubt you didn't see Reagan do that. It's only one of the most famous presidential debate quotes of the past 50 years. You clearly didn't "know well of RR." And if you're going to use the Lloyd Bentsen quote, at least give the guy his due and quote it correctly. But with your gun slinging, no thinking, no fact checking mentality, I'm not surprised. "Irconic" things don't happen to you when you edit....lol.
Lloyd Bentsen