Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is the intrinsic value of gold?

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?

Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.
lannan13
Posts: 23,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 3:37:30 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
It is only worth what we say it's worth.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 2:16:22 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

Well, water and air are some exceptions, salt, a few others.
Relative value fluctuates, but there really is intrinsic value to humans at least, in air, water and salt.
Other life forms may consider those things a nuisance, so in an ultimate sense, no intrinsic value.
I would say it is understood we mean 'intrinsic value to humans'.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 6:15:25 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
There's only 25 cubic feet of platinum that has ever been mined. All the world's gold would fit within a 20 meter cube.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 11:44:55 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 6:15:25 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
There's only 25 cubic feet of platinum that has ever been mined. All the world's gold would fit within a 20 meter cube.

When you look at the supplies (in ground and in the hand) of silver, gold, platinum, and then look at the market price of each, it is inexplicable, EXCEPT, humans have always had a love affair with that pretty, shiny, yellow stuff.

The bimbo gets all of the attention, what are ya gonna do.
GrimlyF
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 6:05:59 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

"Economic systems should be studied,not altered".Are you aware of the time when the entire Worlds economy was based on the price of tulips?.Have you ever heard of the South Sea bubble?.Regarding the O.P. gold is only scarce because it is controlled by most of the worlds economies.Ever wondered why gold and not diamonds?.It's because the diamond industry is controlled by the big mining companies and what country would put it's future in the hands of business men?.( Apart from America of course).
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 8:51:50 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 6:05:59 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

"Economic systems should be studied,not altered".Are you aware of the time when the entire Worlds economy was based on the price of tulips?.Have you ever heard of the South Sea bubble?.Regarding the O.P. gold is only scarce because it is controlled by most of the worlds economies.Ever wondered why gold and not diamonds?.It's because the diamond industry is controlled by the big mining companies and what country would put it's future in the hands of business men?.( Apart from America of course).

My point is to keep government controls out of economies. Types of money and currency should be decided by individuals.

Individuals can select not to purchase the product of any businessman, but governments leave no such option.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 1:34:59 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
Chang29

When you say government should stay "out of economics" I believe you mean they should allow individuals to create currency - but I do not want to put words in your mouth.
Is that what you mean?

Assuming you do, there are a number of problems.
Until sometime in the 1860s banks could issue money, backed by silver/gold.
A bank went bust, lots of people lost money.

A disclaimer. Today in common language the terms money and currency are used interchangeably. There can be a difference, but there is always an overlap, currency is a huge subset of money. It won't bother me if the terms are used interchangeably, with distinctions being made when necessary.

Today there are some towns issuing their own currency in return for work done for the local government - would not satisfy your criteria.

Most people who take your position would want this non-governmental currency to be PM - precious metal.
Here are four really big problems I see, would like to see your solutions.

First, where does the integrity of the currency come from?
How does anyone know a one ounce coin of PM, 99% pure, really is one ounce, and 99% pure? How do you prevent counterfeit currency?
I assume not the government, but, maybe that is your suggestion.

Second, how is the value of PM determined?
In the last 20 years gold has been as low as $300 an ounce, to as high as $1800 an ounce.
Fluctuations of $100 in a single day are not that uncommon.
Other PM have their fluctuations.
Do you favor price control for all PM, and who sets it?

A third really big problem, Do you expect all businesses to accept all of these different forms of currency?

A fourth problem is digital money. How would credit card transactions be done.
How could someone make payment transfers by phone, internet, or mail.

This relates to the last two points.
If 100 entities issue currency, does that mean I will have 100 different kinds of money in my pocket. If there is no government control, this would more likely be thousands, or tens of thousands, in my pocket, and my bank account(s).

There are certainly other problems, but this are the big ones I see without giving it much thought.
GrimlyF
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 6:24:39 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 8:51:50 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:05:59 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

"Economic systems should be studied,not altered".Are you aware of the time when the entire Worlds economy was based on the price of tulips?.Have you ever heard of the South Sea bubble?.Regarding the O.P. gold is only scarce because it is controlled by most of the worlds economies.Ever wondered why gold and not diamonds?.It's because the diamond industry is controlled by the big mining companies and what country would put it's future in the hands of business men?.( Apart from America of course).

My point is to keep government controls out of economies. Types of money and currency should be decided by individuals.

Individuals can select not to purchase the product of any businessman, but governments leave no such option.

"Keep government controls out of economies".Tell me, do you ever take notice of anything happening outside your little world?.Let me tell you what happens when a country loses control of it's economy.4mths ago had I wanted to holiday in America I could have got $1.50 for my English "1 now I get $1 for "1.That's right my money has lost 30% of its value because our future was decided by a referendum the result of which is just now becoming clear..........What do you mean individuals should decide what currency the want?.Are you going to go shopping with a handful of yen?. Good luck with that.What does your government MAKE you buy?..............P.S.You cannot be a free market anti capitalist since a free market is the bedrock of capitalism.
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 1:23:32 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 6:24:39 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:51:50 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:05:59 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

"Economic systems should be studied,not altered".Are you aware of the time when the entire Worlds economy was based on the price of tulips?.Have you ever heard of the South Sea bubble?.Regarding the O.P. gold is only scarce because it is controlled by most of the worlds economies.Ever wondered why gold and not diamonds?.It's because the diamond industry is controlled by the big mining companies and what country would put it's future in the hands of business men?.( Apart from America of course).

My point is to keep government controls out of economies. Types of money and currency should be decided by individuals.

Individuals can select not to purchase the product of any businessman, but governments leave no such option.

"Keep government controls out of economies".Tell me, do you ever take notice of anything happening outside your little world?.Let me tell you what happens when a country loses control of it's economy.4mths ago had I wanted to holiday in America I could have got $1.50 for my English "1 now I get $1 for "1.That's right my money has lost 30% of its value because our future was decided by a referendum the result of which is just now becoming clear..........What do you mean individuals should decide what currency the want?.Are you going to go shopping with a handful of yen?. Good luck with that.What does your government MAKE you buy?..............P.S.You cannot be a free market anti capitalist since a free market is the bedrock of capitalism.

You were a victim of government fiat currencies, and exporters benefited. If government and currency were separated then a vote would make no difference.

Fiat currencies will die, but governments can decide how long and painful the death will be on people. Many people will be locked in cages or killed for using or creating better currencies.

Governments have forced me to buy armies, roads, schools, pay subsidies to businesses, and pay for police to protect me from myself, none of which I wanted or needed.

For powerful capitalists, the preferred method of persevering wealth is with governments. The best way to fight the powerful capitalists is with free markets. Thus, I'm a free market anti capitalist.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2016 3:21:15 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/24/2016 6:05:59 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

"Economic systems should be studied,not altered".Are you aware of the time when the entire Worlds economy was based on the price of tulips?.Have you ever heard of the South Sea bubble?.Regarding the O.P. gold is only scarce because it is controlled by most of the worlds economies.Ever wondered why gold and not diamonds?.It's because the diamond industry is controlled by the big mining companies and what country would put it's future in the hands of business men?.( Apart from America of course).

In what sense is gold scarce?
There is a limited supply of anything, on earth.
Gold is not more scarce than platinum, but worth more, regardless.
Gold is not 70 times as scarce as silver, only about 30 times, but is worth 70 times as much.
Relatively speaking, gold is not scarce. Certainly not as scarce as value would indicates.
GrimlyF
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 1:17:21 AM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/2/2016 3:21:15 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:05:59 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

"Economic systems should be studied,not altered".Are you aware of the time when the entire Worlds economy was based on the price of tulips?.Have you ever heard of the South Sea bubble?.Regarding the O.P. gold is only scarce because it is controlled by most of the worlds economies.Ever wondered why gold and not diamonds?.It's because the diamond industry is controlled by the big mining companies and what country would put it's future in the hands of business men?.( Apart from America of course).

In what sense is gold scarce?
There is a limited supply of anything, on earth.
Gold is not more scarce than platinum, but worth more, regardless.
Gold is not 70 times as scarce as silver, only about 30 times, but is worth 70 times as much.
Relatively speaking, gold is not scarce. Certainly not as scarce as value would indicates.
Gold is the basis of many economies in the world. When Britain changed its economic base from gold to the U.S. dollar they sold most of its gold stock and the price plummeted by 13%. This, obviously,meant that the bullion in countries with gold as its economic base lost 13% of its value as well. If the gold miners decided to sell all their stocks the price would drop and currency would be devalued. So they don't and gold prices remain high.
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 2:50:53 AM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/3/2016 1:17:21 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 12/2/2016 3:21:15 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:05:59 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

"Economic systems should be studied,not altered".Are you aware of the time when the entire Worlds economy was based on the price of tulips?.Have you ever heard of the South Sea bubble?.Regarding the O.P. gold is only scarce because it is controlled by most of the worlds economies.Ever wondered why gold and not diamonds?.It's because the diamond industry is controlled by the big mining companies and what country would put it's future in the hands of business men?.( Apart from America of course).

In what sense is gold scarce?
There is a limited supply of anything, on earth.
Gold is not more scarce than platinum, but worth more, regardless.
Gold is not 70 times as scarce as silver, only about 30 times, but is worth 70 times as much.
Relatively speaking, gold is not scarce. Certainly not as scarce as value would indicates.
Gold is the basis of many economies in the world. When Britain changed its economic base from gold to the U.S. dollar they sold most of its gold stock and the price plummeted by 13%. This, obviously,meant that the bullion in countries with gold as its economic base lost 13% of its value as well. If the gold miners decided to sell all their stocks the price would drop and currency would be devalued. So they don't and gold prices remain high.

Are you claiming there is a country, no, wait, several countries that have currency backed by gold?
Astounding.
Can you name a few? Or, even one.

And this other part, very interesting.
You seem to suggest that the supply of gold affects the value of currency...... in some country.........maybe more than one. Can you name one?

So there are people, miners, who could sell a lot of gold, and get wealthier, but they choose not to, so that.............currency does not drop in value, in some country?

So gold is scarce for artificial reasons. Voluntary non-production, or hoarding, or both.

You have some strange notions.
GrimlyF
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 3:12:14 AM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/3/2016 2:50:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 12/3/2016 1:17:21 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 12/2/2016 3:21:15 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:05:59 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 11/23/2016 4:24:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/23/2016 1:31:07 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/23/2016 12:35:30 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:51:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:47:05 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:29:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:13:49 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Scarcity is a key part of intrinsic value. Gold is subject to scarcity so there will always be someone willing to exchange for gold. Whereas, the intrinsic value of debt depends on the amount of violence that one party is willing to apply on the other party.

So since gold is worth more than platinum, does that mean there is much more platinum around?

Since the gold to silver ratio is about 70:1, does that mean there is 70 times more silver around compared to gold?

Wait, what did you say???
Scarcity affects intrinsic value??

I have to go to some dictionaries, as much as I dislike them.

In finance, intrinsic value refers to the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value.
So, market value not an issue.
Tell me, what is the value of gold, absent the market value?



Then, there is the philosophical usage:
The notion of intrinsic value is false, though. By attempting to say the object has value regardless of context, it undercuts how we decide if an object is of value. Value is relational. To exist, it needs a valuer and a goal. We say that water is good because it is necessary to live. Too much water, in the form of a flood, can kill us. Water in that context is not valuable. But according to intrinsic value, it would still be, or water wouldn't be valuable ever.

The intrinsic value of anything is its utility, gold's historic utility has been as money. Until currencies and other mediums of exchange replace gold as money, its intrinsic value will be much greater than zero.

You failed to answer my direct questions. What's that about?
You say utility determines intrinsic value. I disagree, but let's go with that, see what happens.
It seems to me silver and platinum both provide that utility just as well. If you disagree, tell us why. Actually, historically silver has served as 'money', as you use the term, much more than gold. For historic usage, silver has served better than gold for the utility of 'money'. Serves better, worth more, according to you.
So, why is it that all three do not have the same intrinsic value?
See, we are back to my questions about scarcity.

There is, by many estimates, thirty times as much silver as gold.
Additionally, silver is in common usage for industrial purposes, and ends up in land fills, with the garbage. This essentially removes it from availability, reducing the supply, increasing the scarcity. This does not happen to gold, making the total availability rather flat.
By your criteria, gold should be worth 30 times as much as silver (or even 25 times as much by some estimates) on a path to be of equal value in the future. Instead, gold is worth 70 times as much as silver.

So, your explanation just does not make sense, even if I accept your meaning of "intrinsic", and 'money'.

Intrinsic value especially of currency and money is difficult, especially when trying to measure in currency or another good. If gold lost its properties of money, its value is much less. Understanding value is hard enough without adding intrinsic.

The only properties of money that gold has are bestowed upon it by a benevolent society, and not intrinsic in the slightest.
I have demonstrated this by my pointed queries that you ignore.

I'll agree. Basically nothing has intrinsic value, everything has alternatives. Economic systems are complex and should be studied, not altered.

"Economic systems should be studied,not altered".Are you aware of the time when the entire Worlds economy was based on the price of tulips?.Have you ever heard of the South Sea bubble?.Regarding the O.P. gold is only scarce because it is controlled by most of the worlds economies.Ever wondered why gold and not diamonds?.It's because the diamond industry is controlled by the big mining companies and what country would put it's future in the hands of business men?.( Apart from America of course).

In what sense is gold scarce?
There is a limited supply of anything, on earth.
Gold is not more scarce than platinum, but worth more, regardless.
Gold is not 70 times as scarce as silver, only about 30 times, but is worth 70 times as much.
Relatively speaking, gold is not scarce. Certainly not as scarce as value would indicates.
Gold is the basis of many economies in the world. When Britain changed its economic base from gold to the U.S. dollar they sold most of its gold stock and the price plummeted by 13%. This, obviously,meant that the bullion in countries with gold as its economic base lost 13% of its value as well. If the gold miners decided to sell all their stocks the price would drop and currency would be devalued. So they don't and gold prices remain high.

Are you claiming there is a country, no, wait, several countries that have currency backed by gold?
Astounding.
Can you name a few? Or, even one.

And this other part, very interesting.
You seem to suggest that the supply of gold affects the value of currency...... in some country.........maybe more than one. Can you name one?

So there are people, miners, who could sell a lot of gold, and get wealthier, but they choose not to, so that.............currency does not drop in value, in some country?

So gold is scarce for artificial reasons. Voluntary non-production, or hoarding, or both.

You have some strange notions.

Mongolia has a gold based economy. Are you aware that the U.S. has ( 2012 figures) $437 BILLION worth of gold bullion locked away somewhere?. That's where the gold is. Locked away in treasuries all over the
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 11:56:59 AM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/3/2016 3:12:14 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 12/3/2016 2:50:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

In what sense is gold scarce?
There is a limited supply of anything, on earth.
Gold is not more scarce than platinum, but worth more, regardless.
Gold is not 70 times as scarce as silver, only about 30 times, but is worth 70 times as much.
Relatively speaking, gold is not scarce. Certainly not as scarce as value would indicates.
Gold is the basis of many economies in the world. When Britain changed its economic base from gold to the U.S. dollar they sold most of its gold stock and the price plummeted by 13%. This, obviously,meant that the bullion in countries with gold as its economic base lost 13% of its value as well. If the gold miners decided to sell all their stocks the price would drop and currency would be devalued. So they don't and gold prices remain high.

Are you claiming there is a country, no, wait, several countries that have currency backed by gold?
Astounding.
Can you name a few? Or, even one.

And this other part, very interesting.
You seem to suggest that the supply of gold affects the value of currency...... in some country.........maybe more than one. Can you name one?

So there are people, miners, who could sell a lot of gold, and get wealthier, but they choose not to, so that.............currency does not drop in value, in some country?

So gold is scarce for artificial reasons. Voluntary non-production, or hoarding, or both.

You have some strange notions.

Mongolia has a gold based economy. Are you aware that the U.S. has ( 2012 figures) $437 BILLION worth of gold bullion locked away somewhere?. That's where the gold is. Locked away in treasuries all over the (world).

So the only country with a gold standard (sorry Mongolia, I had forgotten you were still a country):
Has an annual per capita income of $4000.
The currency collapsed in August of this year.
Bloomberg says "It isn"t hard to find a cause for Mongolia"s woes. Much of it can be pinned to an over reliance on demand for its deep reserves of copper, iron, coal and gold. The slowdown in China -- which takes more than 80 percent of Mongolia"s exports -- is hurting the nation."

They call it the resource curse. To much mineral wealth, like gold.
"This is an economy that gives new meaning to what economists call the resource curse. An overabundance of natural resources can result in lopsided economic growth, government waste and boom-bust cycles that can leave a country"s finances in tatters."

If that gold were not locked away, and it were released, that would not devalue the currency. It would devalue gold.

Gold should be worth half of what it is (based on the price of silver and the gold to silver supply ratio).
The hoarding of gold that you refer to, is propping up the value of gold, not currency.

The value of gold does not determine the value of currency because only one country has a gold backed currency.
RonPaulConservative
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 6:50:07 PM
Posted: 2 days ago
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Firstly it's rare.
Secondly it's among the most durable metals in eistance, it doesn't corrode or rust.
Third it reflects rays better than pure lead.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 8:32:04 PM
Posted: 2 days ago
At 12/3/2016 6:50:07 PM, RonPaulConservative wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:48:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I got out my calculator, some charts, some more charts, made some graphs, threw them away and made some more. Checked out the historical value of gold compared to things like silver, platinum, eggs, water, cow manure. adjusted for inflation. and I think I have the answer.

Zero, in USD.

Relative value is a different story, and varies from pennies on the ounce, to thousands on the ounce.
$35 an ounce is the number that always sticks in my head. And that was a lot of money.
Today it is $1216. Tomorrow, who knows, probably not $35, but, who knows? That is how relative value works, up one day, down the next.
It is worth whatever the seller and buyer agree upon, no more, no less.

Firstly it's rare.
Secondly it's among the most durable metals in eistance, it doesn't corrode or rust.
Third it reflects rays better than pure lead.

It reflects rays better?
Is that a way of saying it looks prettier, because as far as I know, very little gold is used as industrial reflectors. Possible none.

Lets start with the easy questions, and go from there.
Platinum is more rare than gold. For example, in 2014 the world mined 5 million ounces of platinum, but 91 million ounces of gold.
Platinum does not rust, or corrode.
Platinum is about $900 per ounce, so why is gold about $1200 per ounce?

Silver does not rust or corrode, although it does oxidize slightly.
It is nearly as good as gold in the properties you mention, plus it has antibacterial qualities that gold does not have..
Silver is not as rare as gold, with ratios of about 30:1, so why is the price 70:1?
If it because it is prettier?
RonPaulConservative
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 8:59:42 PM
Posted: 2 days ago
Silver does not rust or corrode, although it does oxidize slightly.
It is nearly as good as gold in the properties you mention, plus it has antibacterial qualities that gold does not have..
Silver is not as rare as gold, with ratios of about 30:1, so why is the price 70:1?
If it because it is prettier?

Gold could be harder to extract also.
I meant gold is better than lead as a radiation shield.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 9:58:48 PM
Posted: 2 days ago
At 12/3/2016 8:59:42 PM, RonPaulConservative wrote:
Silver does not rust or corrode, although it does oxidize slightly.
It is nearly as good as gold in the properties you mention, plus it has antibacterial qualities that gold does not have..
Silver is not as rare as gold, with ratios of about 30:1, so why is the price 70:1?
If it because it is prettier?

Gold could be harder to extract also.
I meant gold is better than lead as a radiation shield.
Dollar for dollar, which would you say is better.
You know, $1000 worth of lead compared to $1000 worth of gold. 1000 pounds of lead or an ounce of gold. Which would you want for a shield?
RonPaulConservative
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2016 11:46:19 PM
Posted: 2 days ago
At 12/3/2016 9:58:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 12/3/2016 8:59:42 PM, RonPaulConservative wrote:
Silver does not rust or corrode, although it does oxidize slightly.
It is nearly as good as gold in the properties you mention, plus it has antibacterial qualities that gold does not have..
Silver is not as rare as gold, with ratios of about 30:1, so why is the price 70:1?
If it because it is prettier?

Gold could be harder to extract also.
I meant gold is better than lead as a radiation shield.
Dollar for dollar, which would you say is better.
You know, $1000 worth of lead compared to $1000 worth of gold. 1000 pounds of lead or an ounce of gold. Which would you want for a shield?

If you wanted to cover your whole body one ounce of lead would not work at all. But, Gold can be hammered down almost infinitely and be virtually just as effective. So, give me the ounce of gold and I'll hammer it into foil.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 12:50:19 AM
Posted: 2 days ago
At 12/3/2016 11:46:19 PM, RonPaulConservative wrote:
At 12/3/2016 9:58:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 12/3/2016 8:59:42 PM, RonPaulConservative wrote:
Silver does not rust or corrode, although it does oxidize slightly.
It is nearly as good as gold in the properties you mention, plus it has antibacterial qualities that gold does not have..
Silver is not as rare as gold, with ratios of about 30:1, so why is the price 70:1?
If it because it is prettier?

Gold could be harder to extract also.
I meant gold is better than lead as a radiation shield.
Dollar for dollar, which would you say is better.
You know, $1000 worth of lead compared to $1000 worth of gold. 1000 pounds of lead or an ounce of gold. Which would you want for a shield?

If you wanted to cover your whole body one ounce of lead would not work at all. But, Gold can be hammered down almost infinitely and be virtually just as effective. So, give me the ounce of gold and I'll hammer it into foil.

You want to compare 10 cents worth of lead to $1000 worth of gold.
And use that to justify the market price of gold.
Yeah.
RonPaulConservative
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 12:54:46 AM
Posted: 2 days ago
You want to compare 10 cents worth of lead to $1000 worth of gold.
And use that to justify the market price of gold.
Yeah.

It doesn't matter, 1 bar of gold, or 1,179.85$ worth of gold, can suffice to cover a whole man. In fact if you flattened it enough it could cover a whole group of people. 1,170 bricks of lead would have to be stacked on top of eachother
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2016 2:03:48 AM
Posted: 2 days ago
At 12/4/2016 12:54:46 AM, RonPaulConservative wrote:
You want to compare 10 cents worth of lead to $1000 worth of gold.
And use that to justify the market price of gold.
Yeah.

It doesn't matter, 1 bar of gold, or 1,179.85$ worth of gold, can suffice to cover a whole man. In fact if you flattened it enough it could cover a whole group of people. 1,170 bricks of lead would have to be stacked on top of eachother

Yeah.
I see.
You don't like Lego.
I get it.