|
Which is all you need to know; during war, eggs are currency.
Art isn't.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I hesitate to quibble, because if 100 people wrote a post about money, yours would be one of the best.
Gold doesn't actually have many uses, certainly not compared to silver. It is valued more for its beauty. Platinum has more uses than gold, and is also scarcer, yet its price has been less than gold for a while now.
It was Aristotle who first described the attributes that make for good money:
- Durable, which rules out things that rot or rust.
- Convenient, which rules out things that weigh too much compared to their value.
- Consistent, which rules out things like real estate.
- Divisible, which rules out things like artwork.
- Valuable, which rules out things like paper.
Value is ultimately subjective, not intrinsic. This explains why Yap stones were used as money. That culture valued them for some reason, maybe because they could only be moved by someone who could summon lots of workers.
Scarcity should be added to the list, to rule out money that can be conjured out of nothing, like the numbers in a bank account. We use the money that we do only because we're forced to by legal tender laws. Aristotle never anticipated a system that unethical.
If you evaluate BTC on the basis of all these attributes, it passes them all except having a history of being valuable. But that's the one attribute that is largely subjective, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahr, sorry; you came with a lot of statements, and had to reply to all. You took the time to write 'em, so I need to take the time to answer; you'd want nothing less from a junior programmer defending his code. You need not agree, instead, happy if you don't and explain why.
Greg Utas wrote: I hesitate to quibble, because if 100 people wrote a post about money, yours would be one of the best.
Ehr, thanks. But do quibble; it makes this site the best in software. And I might learn if you do. And no, if I knew that much about money, I'd be rich. Positively not rich, so don't take my word on anything. And most bankers will defend fiat and I do too, more on that later in the post.
Greg Utas wrote: Gold doesn't actually have many uses
You sure? Did the Spanish erect treasure ships for something without use? Read on 
Greg Utas wrote: certainly not compared to silver
Which does corrode. It's anti-bacterial, but the medieval Spanish didn't know. And 16:1 for silver vs gold in the ground. Not exactly the match we have today.
Greg Utas wrote: It is valued more for its beauty. Platinum has more uses than gold, and is also scarcer, yet its price has been less than gold for a while now.
Gotta be honest, I know very little about platinum. Being scarce doesn't make value, use does. The masks of ancient Egyptians (sometime before the medieval Spanish) did not corrode, using a little bit of gold and hammering it paper-thin. And "chemically inert" has it's uses, as does the fact that it doesn't rust. We don't coat USB plugs in gold layer because it's pretty. It doesn't rust, it doesn't react with the poison called oxygen. (Yes, oxygen is a poison, and it's the reason we age and grow old and die)
Greg Utas wrote: It was Aristotle who first described the attributes that make for good money
Yes, yes; no longer care if you right or wrong, you looking for the "why"! Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, that order, and Socrates demanded you question "everything". Even your own beliefs. Demanding arguments for all you know; otherwise, you cannot claim to know. And one must learn what money is first. After that, compound interest.
Greg Utas wrote: Durable, which rules out things that rot or rust.
Which makes eggs or wood inconvenient, but during wars, tobacco will do fine. But in difficult times, we accept it. Want to know what currency is? Go to prison. You find that a lot is currency, not all exactly Aristoteles ideal. We make do with what we have.
Greg Utas wrote: Convenient, which rules out things that weigh too much compared to their value.
YES! Copper is inconvenient, but has bloody lots of uses as all of us know; and cheap enough to be used in quantity. And was used as a currency in history. Copper was used a an (inconvenient) currency in history.
Greg Utas wrote: Consistent, which rules out things like real estate.
And eggs. Each gram of the currency needs to be consistent, and both eggs and wood aren't. The worth of code is even harder to measure. How many lines of code for an egg?
Greg Utas wrote: Divisible, which rules out things like artwork.
We could divide art, having a holding and dividing value over computers with multiple people much like BitCoin; it it had intrinsic value.
Greg Utas wrote: Valuable, which rules out things like paper.
You mean the paper we pay with?  That's legislation, not value. Or toilet paper? Their intrinsic worth is comparable, as the Germans can explain. No, wait, toilet paper has more demand under circumstances, so it's worth more in those cases. They couldn't afford it.
Greg Utas wrote: Value is ultimately subjective, not intrinsic.
No; a 100 kilo of wood to a farmer, is worth a 100 kilo of wood. It's depending on supply and demand yes, but not subjectiveness; it has its uses, regardless of your ideas of what wood would be. The farmer buys on use, not on speculation. He pays what he thinks it's worth, and that was once the base of capitalism.
Greg Utas wrote: to rule out money that can be conjured out of nothing, like the numbers in a bank account. We use the money that we do only because we're forced to by legal tender laws. Aristotle never anticipated a system that unethical.
He did.
We call it fiat. And that may sound wrong, to have "fake" money, it's not; it was one of the wonders that helped build our modern world. We could not have grown economically this far under a gold-standard. We grew faster, developed more, discovered more. Imagine space-research on a gold-standard; there would hardly be any. As a gold silver-bug, we need fiat to keep up. As a civilization we could not have grown this far without fiat. When more people grew on the planet, so did the monetary base of fiat. You may not feel like it, I certainly don't, but this one of the richest times mankind ever knew. Never before was there this much wealth for us. (Yes, yes, the 1%, but even with them, this explanation stands)
Greg Utas wrote: > Scarcity should be added to the list, to rule out money that can be conjured out of nothing, like the numbers in a bank account. We use the money that we do only because we're forced to by legal tender laws. Aristotle never anticipated a system that unethical.
You already mentioned why; you said "valuable". The thing that makes copper more valuable than wood is scarcity, and so for gold versus copper. I can get you a lot of copper, but not much gold. That's why medievel currencies weighed a few grams of silver (a piece o' eight), instead of some kilo's of copper.
Greg Utas wrote: If you evaluate BTC on the basis of all these attributes, it passes them all except having a history of being valuable. But that's the one attribute that is largely subjective, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
So you invested?
I'm seeing BC from a historical perspective; and it is not a resource. Traditionally, all non-fiat currencies were resources. And all fiat currencies to date failed. BC is not fiat, I agree, but it's not a resource either. It's something I don't know.
Here is what I do know; lot's of people investing in it, because prices going up. But few people realize where they can spend their currency. And during war, it may be worth just as much as art, or more than gold. I can't tell.
My friend bought @13k, panic sold @8k. Don't invest what you can't miss. It will not change our world, it'll be at best another currency. And currencies, besides what Aristoteles said, need be accepted. And I think he did mention that, under your heading of "valuable". Gold is valuable to all of us, because of it's uses. BC is not valuable to all of us, because of it's uses.
Also, this is not trading information; if I knew *anything* about currencies, I'd be rich. I'm definitely not.
--edit
Lots and lots of typos. My English suffered from not interacting here.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
modified 9-Feb-21 20:09pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: But do quibble; it makes this site the best in software.
This has nothing to do with software. It's far more important.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: if I knew that much about money, I'd be rich
Knowing economics isn't necessarily correlated with being rich, though it can help if you don't believe most of the crapola that passes for it these days.
Eddy--you don't mind if I call you Eddy, do you? It's so much less formal--wrote: Did the Spanish erect treasure ships for something without use?
They sure did. Back then, gold didn't even have use in electronics or dentistry. It was valued almost entirely for its beauty.
Eddy wrote: And 16:1 for silver vs gold in the ground. Not exactly the match we have today.
And only mined at 8:1. Some claim that the gold-to-silver ratio is out of whack at 65:1. Yet platinum is 10 times as scarce as gold. Scarcity isn't everything.
Eddy wote: Which makes eggs or wood inconvenient, but during wars, tobacco will do fine.
And in prisons. Money has two roles: for exchange, and as a store of value. Perishable things don't work as stores of value but can be great for barter.
Eddy Baby wrote: We could divide art
Try dividing the Mona Lisa, though we could float shares in it. But which shareholder gets to keep it on display?
Eddy Baby wrote: It's depending on supply and demand yes, but not subjectiveness
It's all subjective: aggregate supply and demand are just the interplay of individual subjective valuations.
Angel Drawers wrote: And that may sound wrong, to have "fake" money, it's not; it was one of the wonders that helped build our modern world. We could not have grown economically this far under a gold-standard. We grew faster, developed more, discovered more.
Here you go astray, but you're in the company of most contemporary "economists". The period of greatest expansion was the 19th century--the gold standard. During that time, prices (outside of wartime) fell by 1%-2% a year as economic expansion outpaced money supply growth. Yet economies boomed.
Needing more money to "lubricate" the economy is bollocks. More money adds nothing to an economy. It's just a big teeter-totter, with goods and services on one side and money on the other. Add money, and all that happens is that the price level goes up.
What we enjoy today is the result of technological progress, not fiat. And fiat is profoundly unethical. The US dollar, which has held up better than most, has lost almost 99% of its value since 1913 when the gold standard ended. Money should be a store of value, but conjuring more of it dilutes existing holders. It's similar to counterfeiting or a company printing share certificates and giving them to cronies, either of which would land regular people in prison.
The last remnants of the gold standard ended in 1971 when Nixon abrogated Bretton Woods. Since then, real wages for the average worker stopped increasing. The economy has become more financialized, with much of the wealth going to the 1%, many of them too-big-to-fail banksters.
One effect of monetary expansion is artifically low interest rates. Lower interest rates should mean that people are saving more and are willing to consume less today in return for more later. Businesses see this signal and expand to develop things with longer time horizons. But the signal can be fake, caused by central bank manipulation. If the money supply doesn't keep expanding, the signal gets revealed as a fraud that causes a recession due to malinvestment. This is one of the main causes of business cycles. We now even have negative interest rates on government debt. If this doesn't tell you that something is horribly wrong, I don't know what will.
The fiat system is perpetuated by sycophants for central banks and governments, who want the privilege to conjure money and direct it towards pet projects and special interests. Do you think anyone would accept this shite given a choice? That should tell you all that you need to know.
modified 9-Feb-21 22:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: This has nothing to do with software. It's far more important.
That's relative.
Greg Utas wrote: Knowing economics isn't necessarily correlated with being rich, though it can help if you don't believe most of the crapola that passes for it these days.
I don't know about economics. And being old, I've no use for being rich; I'm content. That's more than most can claim. And most Gods' don't provide that.
Greg Utas wrote: They sure did. Back then, gold didn't even have use in electronics or dentistry. It was valued almost entirely for its beauty.
Ehr.. no; as I already explained, the Egyptians discovered they could make the metal paper thin without it rusting. If it was just being looking fancy, you'd be trading pyrite. Fools gold. Or shiny glass shards.
Greg Utas wrote: And in prisons. Money has two roles: for exchange, and as a store of value. Perishable things don't work as stores of value but can be great for barter.
The circumstance make currency; in prison, tobacco is, or better, weed if you can supply it. Gold has little value there, since there's no one to sell to. Why not, well, they have no use for it. Visit a prison, it works very sobering.
Greg Utas wrote: Try dividing the Mona Lisa, though we could float shares in it. But which shareholder gets to keep it on display?
Repeating what I said, art has no real value. You name one of the best known pieces of art, famous for it's new way of drawing eyes. But in terms of eggs, it has little value in times of need. Art is only valuable if money available. Right now, money is sloshing, innit? If people forced to spend their hard earned pieces o' eight on art or eggs, what would they choose, and what would that do to the value of "art"? That's why we barbarians dismanteled all those classics.
Greg Utas wrote: It's all subjective: aggregate supply and demand are just the interplay of individual subjective valuations.
Eh.. "intrinsic" means "not subjective". It means it has value to all, despite your subjective ideas. Your ideas about value don't matter to it. You may dislike eggs, but that doesn't change their real value. You don't have to eat those. You could trade them for their worth, despite your subjective ideas about eggs. But an egg is that; you may subjectively dislike them, but they have an intrinsic value. Depending on supply and demand yes, but they always have some value.
Doesn't matter what those eggs mean to you either. That's subjective again, your opinion, not the worlds'. But the uses we have, as mankind, for eggs, that's not subjective. That's what gives eggs value. That's called "intrinsic". Replace eggs with wood and reread if you still in the woods, if you would.
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck.. sorry, had to, this is getting to serious, and you making me think back. Haven't done so for some time.
Greg Utas wrote: Here you go astray, but you're in the company of most contemporary "economists". The period of greatest expansion was the 19th century--the gold standard. During that time, prices (outside of wartime) fell by 1%-2% a year as economic expansion outpaced money supply growth. Yet economies boomed.
FA Hayek?[^].
In the 20th, we rose without gold. And a "bit more" than the 19th century. You can call it the biggest expansion (due to taking lands not yours), but we went to the moon on fiat, beat polio, and gave women a vote. We built computers, and took more people out of poverty than ever before. We're more communist than ever, thanks to capitalism. Your turn
Greg Utas wrote: What we enjoy today is the result of technological progress, not fiat
Funded by what? Yes; debt.
Greg Utas wrote: And fiat is profoundly unethical
It is! We borrowing from the future. No one will ever repay it; and with Corona, all governments got more validity to borrow more fiat. From ehr.. Dunno who we borrowing from. It's not even money. Private central banks, if I read correct. Means little to me whom we borrowing from. We not repaying.
Greg Utas wrote: The last remnants of the gold standard ended in 1971 when Nixon abrogated Bretton Woods.
You can complain; but did you save? Governments come and go, and times change. Again, did you save?
Greg Utas wrote: One effect of monetary expansion is artifically low interest rates. Lower interest rates should mean that people are saving more and are willing to consume less today in return for more later. Businesses see this signal and expand to develop things with longer time horizons. But the signal can be fake, caused by central bank manipulation. If the money supply doesn't keep expanding, the signal gets revealed as a fraud that causes a recession due to malinvestment. This is one of the main causes of business cycles. We now even have negative interest rates on government debt. If this doesn't tell you that something is horribly wrong, I don't know what will.
Low interest rates also means owning a house is cheap. Most of the Dutch own their house; and I don't, idealism. Interest cannot rise anymore, here or your place; it would not be politically acceptable.
That's the problem of fiat; it is depending on politics. We have negative interest for millionaires, who don't save but invest - that's a non-problem. Millionaires with a saving account don't exist. They invest, buy gold, BC, art, "fine" wine, but don't put money in something that can fail like a "bank". And banks fail, as they proven. And even for the little saver, they were saved; government dictates to print, not to fail.
Greg Utas wrote: One effect of monetary expansion is artifically low interest rates. Lower interest rates should mean that people are saving more and are willing to consume less today in return for more later
That's economic bullshit. People don't have that choice in general. We work to pay the bills, not to save. Most of us not busy with the idea whether money generates more as savings in interest; we paying bills, and lots of us live paycheck to paycheck. We not checking interest-rates day by day, we just trying to survive. Those economic ideas fancy is we all had access to capital. We don't. And that's where that theory of lower interest rate meaning more saving breaks down. We have nothing to save. We prioritizing what bills to pay, disregarding interest.
Keynes is a fool.
Round 2[^]
Greg Utas wrote: The fiat system is perpetuated by sycophants for central banks and governments, who want the privilege to conjure money and direct it towards pet projects and special interests. Do you think anyone would accept this shite given a choice? That should tell you all that you need to know.
I told you before, I'm a silver-bug. All fiat currencies in history, ever, failed. So, in theory.. Prolly not in my lifetime, but I am not saving for me. I got all I need already.
And fiat granted us a great expansion. Yes, someone needs to pay those debts, in theory; but there's not enough real resources to do so. Not even if you combine gold, silver, wood and eggs. We spent more than there is. Youth don't realize, but they'd rise if they knew what we did. If they'd realize, the world would be in real trouble.
And I can place it here, they too busy doing tik-tok, or something like that. Fiat was our way of spending gold (resources if you want) we didn't have as a generation. It caused an expansion, and our governments want to keep that going and they will, because no one wants to say to pensioners and the largest voting group in each country that we borrowed too much. We'll just print more. Prices will go up, not because things more expensive, but money worth less. It's called inflation. And it nothing new; people don't care. And Europe now supporting wars to get people here, we need workers. And if more people in general, than we need more money to keep the price levels the same. And that's what the European Central Bank promised, innit?
Stable prices.
..and as I said, I'm a silver bug. Now you know why. And all delivered, none of that paper-owned sh*t.
You mistake me for someone who must be pro or contra. I'm neither, have no pieces on the board. And my little savings are on a trend that is more than 30 years old. More than 600 years old, to be conservative.
Profiting? Yes. You look up yourself what the "profit" on gold is. It has not become more valuable, because for each new idea where to use it, we found new mines. We running out of both. The value of the resource is not changing, the value of money is.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy wrote: art has no real value
Proving the point that value is subjective, because some people find art far more valuable than you do.
Eddy wrote: "Intrinsic" means "not subjective". It means it has value to all, despite your subjective ideas.
At the level of the individual, value is subjective. Maybe I love eggs and would pay 20 euros for a dozen, or maybe I'm vegan and wouldn't take them for free. The interplay of everyone's subjective valuations, both sellers and buyers of eggs, is what establishes their market price. But all economic activity stems from the behaviour of individuals, so that must be the starting point for economic reasoning.
Eddy wrote: In the 20th, we rose without gold. And a "bit more" than the 19th century.
Sure, progress continued. The question is whether we'd be even further ahead without fiat, and I believe so. The problem with most economic analysis is that it focuses on what is seen but doesn't consider what isn't seen, the effects of unintended consequences.
Eddy wrote: Low interest rates also means owning a house is cheap.
It means mortgages are cheap, which means you can afford a more expensive house, so housing prices have gone to the moon in many places. If mortgage rates returned to normal levels, say 5%, this would end in tears. Central banks and politicians will therefore prop it up until it crashes.
Eddy wrote: That's economic bullshit [that lower interest rates mean people are saving more].
Where would loans come from in a free market, if not from savings? Many people live paycheque to paycheque because no one worries about saving any more. If something bad happens, the government just prints money and gives it to them.
Eddy wrote: All fiat currencies in history, ever, failed. So, in theory.. Prolly not in my lifetime
There's little to debate in your final paragraphs, but my guess is that we will see the end of the Keynesian experiment. I'll definitely take Hayek over Keynes, but even Keynes would be shocked at the behaviour of today's politicians and central banks.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Proving the point that value is subjective, because some people find art far more valuable than you do.
No, that's ony under circumstance when life is good. There's a large subjective value above it's intrinsic value (the materials that still could be usefull).
Greg Utas wrote: At the level of the individual, value is subjective
Again no; as the rest of the world with not adhere to your subjective price; they'll find a common ground around an intrinsic value.
Greg Utas wrote: Maybe I love eggs and would pay 20 euros for a dozen, or maybe I'm vegan and wouldn't take them for free.
That's not value; that's a taste-preference. Some of us like salt on their foods, others not. That's not what gives salt inherit value; and even salt became a currency, being easily dividable, non-rotting, and in high demand - not as table salt, but because one of the uses was to preserve food.
Greg Utas wrote: Sure, progress continued. The question is whether we'd be even further ahead without fiat, and I believe so.
Keep believing for your church. If there's (cheap) money, more people gain access and do productive things. That Keynes then, in a nutshell, advocating for more.
Greg Utas wrote: It means mortgages are cheap, which means you can afford a more expensive house, so housing prices have gone to the moon in many places. If mortgage rates returned to normal levels, say 5%, this would end in tears. Central banks and politicians will therefore prop it up until it crashes.
Yup; that's a good correction.
Greg Utas wrote: Where would loans come from in a free market, if not from savings?
In fiat, it doesn't have to. And under a gold-stanard, people would not give out loans quick. But lets stop dreaming; the world has grown so much that gold is no longer viable as a day-to-day currency.
Greg Utas wrote: but my guess is that we will see the end of the Keynesian experiment
I doubt it; they can inflate the hell out of money, and with money being wireless, people won't go with barrels of money to buy a load of bread. And if the numbers become too big, we scrap a few zero's from the right.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
We don't need a gold standard; we just need freedom to choose money. Many would choose gold--calculate their income and capital gains in gold, and pay the resulting taxes in gold. The fact that fiat must be imposed by coercion means that it's a win-lose, not a win-win, system, and so cannot possibly be the best money.
If debt is inflated away, what will happen to everyone on pensions? Inflation is a tax that dilutes savers and investors. It interferes with interest rates, causing malinvestment. I believe Uruguay is the only South American country that hasn't stricken zeros from its currency on several occasions. If you want to live under banana republic finance, where your masters conjure money and use it to further their ends, be my guest. Or maybe Zimbabwe, with its trillion dollar notes. Or maybe Weimar Germany, and we know where that led. Given a choice, I'd pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, wine has intrinsic value,
In the same way as wood does.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Hey, wine has intrinsic value,
In the same way as wood does.
Yes; but during war, that intinsic money stays. The collectors price for wine fails then.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the intrinsic value might not be the same as the collectors value. That's rather the definition of intrinsic value, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, largely that's it; it may fluctuate a bit due supply and demand, but is mostly stable. Not subjective, but the lowest price all people in the region pay for it (in resources or otherwise).
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: One of the best conductors too, outside gold. Hence, best USB cables have gold plated connectors; still a lot of silver in modern phones.
Wrong. Silver is THE best conductor of electricity and gold is no where close. Copper and Aluminum, as common metals (and thus actually useful) come next. Copper truly better but Aluminum, being considerably less dense, can be made into much thicker wires for power transmission (its main use as a conductor). The thicker lines offer less resistance. Obligatory: "Resistance is Futile!".
As far as your analysis, there's too much personal opinion. Gold and Silver (as my personal opinion) have value because they available to ancients (native gold and silver). It was shiny. It wasn't useful. Think of it this way: gemstones. Valued for the same reason long before they (or the noble metals) had any actual use. Copper, which could be found native, on the other hand, was useful: hence the bronze age.
Take platinum as a relatively modern example: It used to be considered comparatively worthless - implicitly of negative value as an impurity in gold.* and was even used to protect valuable metals (such as gold) in certain types of transit. Now there's platinum jewelery. Why? Well, when it became expensive it became beautiful. It really isn't.
The intrinsic value of a metal like gold, silver, or platinum [before the modern era where the latter two, in particular, had industrial value (catalysis, photograph, for example)] was only the demand of ego - and rightly so. When you're hungry, no amount of gold makes a nourishing meal. It's a luxury, by implication, as it's possession (and that of silver) was only for those who had resources in excess. Like jewelry. With time, it evolved to a medium of exchange (when there was finally enough) that it could pass around a bit. Like all "money", it's really a bookmark for useful things.
My son bough a "Nolan Ryan" baseball card for US$5 when he was about 12 years old. It's value/cost when produced was about $0.01 and that included a stick of gum. With time, as the desire for possession by adults with more money than brains, it was quoted at US$50. No dealers would buy it, however, always finding some obscure (invisible) defect. I told him, and he listened, that if he could even get half the latest quote he should take it and be glad. He did get $35 for it. We learned, from that "dealer" that there are lawyers and doctors buying hoards of sets of baseball cards in the expectation that they'd shoot up in value - but, unlike real commodities, they are manufactured in any amount and with so many available they'd never be worth much. Similarly, as a child/stamp collector, I was amazed I could pay only a few cents above face value for a brand new condition stamp that was 60 years old. But things like cards and stamps? There only true value (aside for use as coasters and mailing letters) is based on greed. Which brings us back to gold and silver and their original cause of valuation. Shiny gifts to purchase a lady's favors, perhaps?
* Wikipeida: Quote: From their first encounters with platinum, the Spanish generally saw the metal as a kind of impurity in gold, and it was treated as such. It was often simply thrown away, and there was an official decree forbidding the adulteration of gold with platinum impurities.[51]
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Two properties that made gold stand out: it was supremely malleable and did not corrode.
With time on their hands, due in part to agriculture, they took to jewelry making.
It wasn't the nugget that fascinated as much as what an artisan could do with it.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Good. Another facet of what I was saying.
The not-corroding part is why it was known to the most ancient civilizations. The Mayans had no metal tools or weapons to speak. What gold they found they traded. Something I did learn today: for the Mayans, Jade was more precious than gold, and of course, because the worked it into jewelry and had religious significance[^].
Food is valuable everywhere, especially when there isn't much around.
As for (locally defined) precious metals and stones - probably more cultural than pragmatic, and, of course, attracting females for breeding purposes by offering gifts.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The ancient Egyptians disagreed. A small nugget hammered paperthing could protect large sculpters from corrision. And in medieval times, we learned the body does not reject it, hence gold teeth.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm curious (presumption: you meant a nugget of gold into gold leaf):Eddy Vluggen wrote: A small nugget hammered paperthing could protect large sculpters from corrision.
Just what was this sculpture made from that it needed protections? They decorated stone with gold but stone doesn't need any particular protection (acid rain's a modern thing). So what would gold leaf protect the rock from?
Or wood, perhaps? Like, for example, a sarcophagus? They had some gold-work as well - but they weren't covered in it so it couldn't have been for protection, there.
Logical conclusion: the gold was just for decoration.
As for the use of gold for tooth fillings? Malliable though gold may be, modern "fillings" made from gold are cast - and the tech involved to make it fit is not trivial (hot/cold shrinkage taken into account at each step so final product fits even if not cements). Hammering into place? Really? Without breaking the jaw? Actually, I lost the link, but the Etruscans used gold for their teeth: decorative - which implies either gold leaf veneer or a prosthetic - and it was purely for decorative purposes. True, however, that besides being shiny and showing off wealth, gold was all they had that wouldn't be corroded by food.
That practice, of shiny gold teeth for cosmetic purposes, is still practiced - along with inlaid jewels for some.
Trivia for you: gold is so malleable that it can be beaten into a sheet only six atoms thick (transparent green if held up to a light).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Just what was this sculpture made from that it needed protections? They decorated stone with gold but stone doesn't need any particular protection (acid rain's a modern thing). So what would gold leaf protect the rock from?
Depending on the stype, erosion for one.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Or wood, perhaps? Like, for example, a sarcophagus?
Not purely; read on.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: As for the use of gold for tooth fillings? Malliable though gold may be, modern "fillings" made from gold are cast - and the tech involved to make it fit is not trivial (hot/cold shrinkage taken into account at each step so final product fits even if not cements). Hammering into place? Really? Without breaking the jaw?
Prolly more by pulling the tooth, crafting one that's similar shape and putting that in the hole. The Romans used copper for that, sounds even more difficult.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: That practice, of shiny gold teeth for cosmetic purposes, is still practiced - along with inlaid jewels for some.
And complete drawings; but for early "denistry", gold was ideal. Well, besides the torture. An early Hebrew text references a woman who wore an artificial eye made of gold. Iran has a toe-prosthetic for a toe. But to stay with the teeth;
Several centuries passed between the dawn of dentistry and early prosthetics, but gold made it’s debut around 2,500 years ago. And dentistry made extensive use of gold for a long time after. Historians disagree on the particulars of diagnosis and treatment, but one find from Egypt in the third millennium B.C. suggests one of the earliest uses of gold wire to hold teeth in place. So far for your hammering-argument.
And since then, we kept finding more uses for gold.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Trivia for you: gold is so malleable that it can be beaten into a sheet only six atoms thick (transparent green if held up to a light).
Yeah, seen such an antique vase that shouldn't exist.
Another nice anecdote for you then; you know how people would bite into gold to verify if it is "real"? A friend of mine had heard that too and tried biting into a 99,9% silver coin. So, cried stop and started explaining how silver is a bit harder than gold.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Putting the whole thing in perspective, gold was used for some of its properties (let's ignore cosmetic show of wealth).
1 - it was available. One of the few metals found native. That's why it, along with silver, are the ancient metals. Copper, also found native, ushered in the bronze age. Iron required smelting.
2 - it was malleable enough to be easily worked into useful shapes
3 - it (in its metallic form) is extremely inert (== non-toxic).
4 - at least by the 18th century, prosthetic teeth were made out of ivory or even wood.
5 - Egyptians using gold for holding together a prosthesis is a far cry from forming a filling! all they have in common is use in the mouth (accidentally, fitting criterion 3, above).
Aside (for your friends teething habits):
The reason for gold jewelry being "18 karat" or less is not to cheapen the jewelry by reducing the gold content but to make it harder and so actually more suitable for jewelry (wouldn't deform as easily). It maintained its major properties (almost totally corrosion resistant and the same color). The normal gold content for jewelry was 14/24 (14 gold to 10 iron, by weight) (i.e. 14K) for a long time. When the price of gold became the venue of speculators and the prices went quite insane, much jewelry dropped down to 10K; gold-plated became the even thinner gold-fill. That bite test of your friend would only be useful for very pure gold.
Also, a much earlier statement of yours about using gold to coat electronic connectors because it was such a good conductor: not so! It's used to prevent corrosion and, insofar as it last, it will. However, the fact of it making an interface between metals is an increase in resistance and thus an overall loss in conductivity (tiny). The extra cost (and waste of gold) is rarely worth it for the consumer's own connectors. Maybe on some circuit boards it's sensible but on your HDMI connector? I suppose so, if you live in a salt mine (or shipboard).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Putting the whole thing in perspective, gold was used for some of its properties (let's ignore cosmetic show of wealth).
Not just that; and will come back to our previous topic, but sorry, this is more interesting to me. Will come back to that, got that conversation marked and I want to learn about it what is not schooled here. I have this stupid idea that European "truth" and yours may vary. Yours as valuable as mine.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 1 - it was available. One of the few metals found native. That's why it, along with silver, are the ancient metals. Copper, also found native, ushered in the bronze age. Iron required smelting.
And in some centuries before this dude they call Christ, they already had alternative uses, as documented. As for copper, no, they found bronze, an alloy. Pure copper is harder to tame. And still, Romans made teeth from it. Yes, been to Rome, because "everyone" has to before they die, no? Not going to Egypt ever, if I see there what I saw in Rome, I will loose faith in history.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 2 - it was malleable enough to be easily worked into useful shapes
Not arguing there; but also means metal working before we did any actual metal-working.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 3 - it (in its metallic form) is extremely inert (== non-toxic).
Not just non-toxic. Lots of sh*t isn't toxic, but our immune system will react since it is recognized as not part of our body. For some dumb reason, it ignores gold. I no doctor, no explanation there. And it is chemically inert. Meaning it doesn't react with most stuff.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 4 - at least by the 18th century, prosthetic teeth were made out of ivory or even wood.
I just posted you a link on how Egyptians, long before this Christ, already did dental procedures using gold. You're "at least" is valid, nonetheless, just as "at least" in the 20th century is. This one is a filler argument, not a reasonable one and you didn't research. Fact is, we repaired teeth (with all humanity hating the idea) some time ago.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: 5 - Egyptians using gold for holding together a prosthesis is a far cry from forming a filling! all they have in common is use in the mouth (accidentally, fitting criterion 3, above).
"Hammering it, breaking the jaw" you said. And why would they use gold, if bronze more plentifull? So, you want more "proof" that it is a resource, not just some ancient form of BitCoin? And glad I not a Roman with a bloody toothache.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: The reason for gold jewelry being "18 karat" or less is not to cheapen the jewelry by reducing the gold content but to make it harder and so actually more suitable for jewelry (wouldn't deform as easily).
I know, my seal-ring isn't 24 karat, because it'd deform due to natural movement of the hand. Asked for silver as a filler. And it's "just" 14k, because the jeweler said that would last longer. Due to friction, it is still getting thinner.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: The normal gold content for jewelry was 14/24 (14 gold to 10 iron, by weight) (i.e. 14K) for a long time.
So my jeweler knows his stuff. Not very surprised. And used it to seal letters. Didn't work, eventually did, but that's another story entirely.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Also, a much earlier statement of yours about using gold to coat electronic connectors because it was such a good conductor: not so! It's used to prevent corrosion and, insofar as it last, it will.
It is a good conductor, just not the ideal one. And it conducts heat like a champ too. The point that it doesn't rust, makes it the ideal spray on any connector. Because, you know, only the out layer needs be. Inside is prolly copper.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: However, the fact of it making an interface between metals is an increase in resistance and thus an overall loss in conductivity (tiny). The extra cost (and waste of gold) is rarely worth it for the consumer's own connectors. Maybe on some circuit boards it's sensible but on your HDMI connector? I suppose so, if you live in a salt mine (or shipboard).
And there it is; Einsteins idea on interest.
"Waste" of gold in those quantaties adds to the money, but to me as a consumer, worth it. But the amount of gold is finite, and a lot is used by industry each year. And one day, the amount we mine and discover will be less than what industry needs. Central Banks not going to part with theirs, in exchange for rediculous amounts. It's value, as a resource and thus as a currency, is doomed to rise.
And that's just gold. Now, silver, is far more complicated. Go there. I'm curious what you'd say about silver.
If I ever behave disrespectfull; quote it and I apoligize public. I also can't do two discussions at a single time. Choose between this an NATO; we can always go back if we finish one.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
This created a great discussion.  for Eddy & Greg.
For those that want a summary: BC is BS.
|
|
|
|
|
Without knowing its history, one might even think GameStop had "value".
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
It was fun, so don't mention it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
The intrinsic value of any currency is what others around you agree it is. This includes physical and virtual currencies.
|
|
|
|
|
The ancients, universally, tried to take it with them ... I doubt that anyone will ever find someone buried with their BTC.
Put another way, if someone owed you $40,000 now, would you take it in BTC (at its height), or take gold.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
