Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-21-2020, 11:47 AM
Ynnad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: The City Different
Posts: 226

What would gold be worth if it were not considered money?


People often assert that gold has no inherent value. I have even seen that assertion on this message board several times. It is my opinion that gold has value to humans because of several of its physical properties. These properties include, but are not limited to, density, conductivity, malleabililty, inertness (resistance to corrosion), and color. Since ancient times, gold has been used as money, currency, and a medium of exchange. It has also been used a store of value.

What would be the value of gold (in terms of price per unit mass) if it were no longer used as money, currency, and a medium of exchange in any way whatsoever? I first thought about also excluding its use as a store of value, but this would be problematic as many other physical substances as well as intangible abstractions are used a store of value such as aluminum, copper, steel, pork belly futures, fiat currency, stock in corporations, etc.

I don’t think we will ever arrive at any number that everyone agrees on. I am more interested in what methodology SDMB people would propose to attempt to determine such a number.

There are a few uses for which I cannot think of a bright line rule to determine if the use is or is not use as money, currency, or a medium of exchange. For example, some uses as jewelry or collectible numismatic items containing gold might be questionable. You cannot have a good argument unless everyone agrees on some definitions. Can anyone propose more refined definitions of money, currency, or medium of exchange that would make borderline cases easier to decide?

As analogy to the uses of gold for non-monetary purposes, consider rhodium. It is also a noble metal but has never been used as money. Yet it has a price per unit mass much greater than gold's.
  #2  
Old 03-21-2020, 11:58 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,874
It would probably just be valued as much as some super-high quality steel. Its main use would be jewelry, plating, conductivity, etc. So my WAG is, maybe 3-5x as much as what the best steel sells for. So, still a lot less than it sells for today.
  #3  
Old 03-21-2020, 12:06 PM
Hellestal is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Storyland
Posts: 2,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynnad View Post
I don’t think we will ever arrive at any number that everyone agrees on. I am more interested in what methodology SDMB people would propose to attempt to determine such a number.
Make a list of elements and their relative supplies. How much exists, on Earth, of each element and how quickly is the existing stock gobbled up by industrial processes and other uses? Restrict the list to elements that have had no history of being used as money. See what a basic regression of their supply to their current price looks like.

Then insert the amount of gold into the equation, in order to see what the regression "predicts" would be the price of gold based on its supply. Something along those lines might "work" in a limited sense.

A problem with this suggestion is that the world supply of gold depends in part on people having sought it out for thousands of years. The supply is larger than it might otherwise be if it hadn't ever been used for money. So it's possible that this technique would give a price too low, given the potential of a much lower supply in a world where gold had never been used as money.

I'd have to think about that more, tho... The price might actually be similar even with lower supply, because the quantity supplied would increase with price. You can go round in circles forever with this kind of logic until you sit down and write out the equations properly.

Last edited by Hellestal; 03-21-2020 at 12:10 PM.
  #4  
Old 03-21-2020, 12:22 PM
Hellestal is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Storyland
Posts: 2,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellestal View Post
Then insert the amount of gold into the equation, in order to see what the regression "predicts" would be the price of gold based on its supply.
No, this is the key mistake of my suggestion.

You can't insert the current stock of gold in our world. You'd have to estimate what the stock of gold would be in the hypothetical world, given less demand. But if you can estimate that based on a hypothetical demand for gold, you'd get your hypothetical price directly, no need for any other work.
  #5  
Old 03-21-2020, 12:13 PM
Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 9,787
Gold is a very useful engineering material that complements the other metals we build stuff out of. It's wonderfully inert, as metals go -- it doesn't rust or corrode, and it doesn't tarnish around halogens the way silver does. Its electrical and thermal conductivity is like silver and copper, and because of the lack of corrosion I think it'd be preferable to copper in every way for electrical and plumbing uses. Gold isn't very strong, but if it were plentiful enough you'd see bridges made of it (just in thicker pieces), and they'd be pretty low maintenance. Gold has very low emissivity, and retains it. You could probably make a nicer durable roof out of gold than any other roofing material currently in use.

Last edited by Napier; 03-21-2020 at 12:14 PM.
  #6  
Old 03-21-2020, 12:24 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier View Post
Gold is a very useful engineering material that complements the other metals we build stuff out of. It's wonderfully inert, as metals go -- it doesn't rust or corrode, and it doesn't tarnish around halogens the way silver does. Its electrical and thermal conductivity is like silver and copper, and because of the lack of corrosion I think it'd be preferable to copper in every way for electrical and plumbing uses. Gold isn't very strong, but if it were plentiful enough you'd see bridges made of it (just in thicker pieces), and they'd be pretty low maintenance. Gold has very low emissivity, and retains it. You could probably make a nicer durable roof out of gold than any other roofing material currently in use.
Doubtful, even if it was as plentiful as steel, but - that’s the issue. Gold is rare. All the gold ever mined in history would make a cube about 70 feet on a side - around 200,000 tons. To give some perspective, the amount of iron mined is 1.8 billion tons per year, so more iron is mined in an hour than all the gold in history.
  #7  
Old 03-21-2020, 01:29 PM
Bert Nobbins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier View Post
Gold is a very useful engineering material that complements the other metals we build stuff out of. It's wonderfully inert, as metals go -- it doesn't rust or corrode, and it doesn't tarnish around halogens the way silver does.
Untrue. Gold is chemically attacked by fluorine and chlorine. (If there is a significant amount of either gas in the air then your medical problems will be more pressing than your electrical ones)

Quote:
Its electrical and thermal conductivity is like silver and copper
Its electrical conductivity is 30% less than copper. That is significant.

Quote:
Gold isn't very strong, but if it were plentiful enough you'd see bridges made of it (just in thicker pieces),
Pure gold is very soft, and not even usable for jewellery. It is alloyed with copper and silver to make it usable. Probably not a good material for structural engineering.
  #8  
Old 03-21-2020, 01:49 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4,730
Gold is not money now, at least where I do my shopping. Are you saying the market price is distorted because of past use of gold coins and bullion? But once you go beyond the actual current price it becomes increasingly tangled and less meaningful to calculate what something is "really" worth.
  #9  
Old 03-21-2020, 02:00 PM
Ynnad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: The City Different
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
Gold is not money now, at least where I do my shopping. Are you saying the market price is distorted because of past use of gold coins and bullion? ... .
I don't use gold for money either. I don't even have any gold. (But I wish I did.) But it is still considered to be a form of money or medium of exchange by a significant number of persons on this planet today. So this, along with its past widespread use as money and currency, is what I believe distorts it present market price.
  #10  
Old 03-21-2020, 02:18 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynnad View Post
I don't use gold for money either. I don't even have any gold. (But I wish I did.) But it is still considered to be a form of money or medium of exchange by a significant number of persons on this planet today.
Wait, though, is it? How many people on the planet today actually use gold as a medium of exchange? I know in theory it is, but pretty much every country on earth uses paper money, coins of other metals, and electrons.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #11  
Old 03-21-2020, 01:03 PM
Heracles's Avatar
Heracles is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Southern Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,711
I think copper would make a better baseline than iron or steel. You can't make cars or ships or buildings out of copper (I'm sure someone will provide examples of each) but you do need it for electrical conductors and various industrial processes. And while it's much more abundant than gold, there's still a limited supply that has had an influence on price.
  #12  
Old 03-21-2020, 01:22 PM
bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 7,049
You are far from the first to think that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:J..._exposure).jpg
  #13  
Old 03-21-2020, 02:11 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynnad View Post
These properties include, but are not limited to, density, conductivity, malleabililty, inertness (resistance to corrosion), and color.
I think there's an interesting question here: how important is color to gold's value? Would people still obsess with gold if it had all of the same physical properties it has now - but was a dull gray color? You don't see people talking about hoarding iridium or thallium. (Okay, thallium is highly toxic. But my point is we over-value gold because it's shiny.)
  #14  
Old 03-21-2020, 02:28 PM
Ynnad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: The City Different
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think there's an interesting question here: how important is color to gold's value? Would people still obsess with gold if it had all of the same physical properties it has now - but was a dull gray color? You don't see people talking about hoarding iridium or thallium. (Okay, thallium is highly toxic. But my point is we over-value gold because it's shiny.)
Gold can be distinguished from most other metals because of its yellow color. Gold imparts a distinctive color when mixed with glass in low concentrations. Google "cranberry glass." Also, just to be pedantic, color and luster are different concepts. "Shiny" is a type of luster. So maybe we could add luster to the list of things that give gold value in addition to color. Maybe there is an industrial application where one needs a highly reflective surface that is resistant to corrosive substances. Can someone give an example?
  #15  
Old 03-21-2020, 02:30 PM
Mangosteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Namche Bazaar
Posts: 2,702
The value of those pieces of paper in your wallet could be zero tomorrow. The value of those one ounce Krugerrand coins hidden in your sock drawer will never be zero.
__________________
Its only funny until someone gets hurt, then its fuckin' hilarious!
  #16  
Old 03-21-2020, 02:58 PM
Ynnad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: The City Different
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
The value of those pieces of paper in your wallet could be zero tomorrow. ...
The value of those pieces of paper might be greatly reduced but I don't think it would be zero. You could sew them together and make a place mat for your dining room table. Or you could make a deck of playing cards out of them. Or you could use them to start the fire in your wood stove. Or, if you had enough of them, you could use them to insulate the walls of your cabin. Just like gold, they still have some utility even if they are no longer money.

(Or maybe they are so contaminated with coronavirus that you must expend time and resources to properly dispose of them. In which case my argument about everything having utility is stood on its head. Rather than thinking about that, I think I will go birdwatching this afternoon.)
  #17  
Old 03-21-2020, 03:07 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
The value of those pieces of paper in your wallet could be zero tomorrow. The value of those one ounce Krugerrand coins hidden in your sock drawer will never be zero.
Nonsense. Gold fails the desert island test. If you were going to be stranded on a desert island for a year, how much gold would you want to bring with you? The answer, of course, is none. Gold is useless on a desert island, which means its value is zero. Even if there were other people on the island, none of them would trade you their useful goods like food or water or medical supplies or pornography for your useless gold.

Gold only has value when you have a fairly sophisticated economy where people are producing excess goods and are willing to trade that excess for luxuries. And an economy like that quickly moves beyond bartering for gold and starts using money, which works a lot better as a trade good than gold does.
  #18  
Old 03-21-2020, 03:26 PM
Ynnad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: The City Different
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
... Gold is useless on a desert island ... .
Nonsense. Gold would be an excellent material to use for fishing sinkers. Of course you would need fishing line and hooks as well. And gold would be a very poor material for making fishing hooks.
  #19  
Old 03-21-2020, 03:30 PM
Ynnad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: The City Different
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynnad View Post
Nonsense. Gold would be an excellent material to use for fishing sinkers. Of course you would need fishing line and hooks as well. And gold would be a very poor material for making fishing hooks.
Also, due to gold's yellow color and shiny luster, you might could construct an awesome lure.
  #20  
Old 03-21-2020, 05:32 PM
robardin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Nonsense. Gold fails the desert island test. If you were going to be stranded on a desert island for a year, how much gold would you want to bring with you? The answer, of course, is none. Gold is useless on a desert island, which means its value is zero. Even if there were other people on the island, none of them would trade you their useful goods like food or water or medical supplies or pornography for your useless gold.

Gold only has value when you have a fairly sophisticated economy where people are producing excess goods and are willing to trade that excess for luxuries. And an economy like that quickly moves beyond bartering for gold and starts using money, which works a lot better as a trade good than gold does.
OK then, to continue this line of thinking, what passes the Desert Island Test that isn't perishable? Then I'd ask, why hasn't that a common, commodity basis of exchange in human history, or has it been?
  #21  
Old 03-21-2020, 08:58 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,266
Quote:
Quoth Ynnad:

"Shiny" is a type of luster. So maybe we could add luster to the list of things that give gold value in addition to color. Maybe there is an industrial application where one needs a highly reflective surface that is resistant to corrosive substances. Can someone give an example?
I was going to mention speculum alloy, which used to be the standard material for scientific mirror optics... but on looking it up, it turns out it's actually two parts copper to one part tin.

One other thing that gold's good for is that it can be plated in extremely thin layers. The Apollo spacesuit helmets were plated with gold to reduce glare, because it was actually the cheapest material that could be used for that purpose, due to how thin the layer could be.
  #22  
Old 03-21-2020, 06:41 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by robardin View Post
OK then, to continue this line of thinking, what passes the Desert Island Test that isn't perishable? Then I'd ask, why hasn't that a common, commodity basis of exchange in human history, or has it been?
Because most people don't live on a desert island.

Did you read all my post? It was only two paragraphs long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Gold only has value when you have a fairly sophisticated economy where people are producing excess goods and are willing to trade that excess for luxuries. And an economy like that quickly moves beyond bartering for gold and starts using money, which works a lot better as a trade good than gold does.
This describes the economy most of us live in. One where we buy and sell the goods we want in our life (okay, this week might not be a typical example). And in an economy like that, money works better than gold.
  #23  
Old 03-21-2020, 02:50 PM
bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 7,049
You are far from the first to think that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:J..._exposure).jpg
  #24  
Old 03-21-2020, 03:21 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,599
Checking around I found the "cost" of producing a troy ounce of gold to be variably stated at between $1000-1200. The higher figure appears on a lot of gold seller sites with dates when gold was not much above $1200. So you had to be an idiot not to buy gold from them, right? I also have doubts about the $1000 figure as well. But it's probably going to be sort of near that on average.

And that's the rub. "Average". Different mines, process, etc. have different costs. In particular, a lot of gold is obtained as a side product of mining for something else, e.g., copper. How do you figure in the cost in this case? If gold is at $500 I bet these types of "bonus" gold recovery places will still keep going. How low would it have to go for copper smelters to stop gleaning the gold? And it's as variable as can be since different copper ores have different percentages of gold associated with them.

In short: it's a very complex matter.

When gold goes down, some mines shut down. Gold goes up, some re-open.

If gold demand for bullion went away, there'd still be significant demand for it for industry and jewelry. So a few places would close. Gold prices would go down a bit (and stabilize a bit more, but not a lot)*.

I can't imagine it ever being below $800 long term. So my guess for the OP's question: $900-$1000.

* Unfortunately, commodity markets are dominated by gambling types who completely mess with actual values regardless of the item.
  #25  
Old 03-22-2020, 02:04 AM
Marvin the Martian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,430
I’d suggest platinum as a comparison point. Very expensive (historically 33% more expensive than gold but not currently), has demand for decorative (jewelry) and industrial uses, but AFAIK has never been used as currency or to back paper currency.
  #26  
Old 03-23-2020, 07:44 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian View Post
I’d suggest platinum as a comparison point ... AFAIK has never been used as currency.
Wiki has this:
Quote:
The first and only case when platinum coins were used as a regular national currency was in Russia, where coins were circulated between 1828 and 1845. These coins proved to be impractical: platinum resembles many less expensive metals, and, unlike the more malleable and ductile silver and gold, it is very difficult to work. However, merchants valued platinum coins because it did not melt in fires like gold or silver.
  #27  
Old 03-22-2020, 04:11 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,493
I think it's actually quite hard to separate gold as jewellery from gold as commodity.

Gold jewellery and decorations have often been a way to flaunt, as well as store, excess wealth.
To imagine gold still being worn or used in this way, sans wealth-flaunting we have to imagine gold losing some of its properties, or something better than gold coming along, or some change in human psychology or society.
In other words, the answer to the hypothetical depends on the precise scenario.

Last edited by Mijin; 03-22-2020 at 04:12 AM.
  #28  
Old 03-22-2020, 06:24 AM
robardin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because most people don't live on a desert island.

Did you read all my post? It was only two paragraphs long.



This describes the economy most of us live in. One where we buy and sell the goods we want in our life (okay, this week might not be a typical example). And in an economy like that, money works better than gold.

Yes, I did. I get it. I'm not saying gold has special value, I'm asking the opposite. Why wouldn't we prefer to use something with intrinsic value for currency? IIRC cocoa beans were used as currency in some pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures; why move away from that?

The obvious answer is perishability - any other? Is there nothing durable that also happens to have intrinsic value? Wasn't payment in salt the basis for the term "salary"?

The other is portability - once concentration of very large amounts is A Thing, nobody wants to schlep hundreds of thousands of blocks of salt to buy something expensive. So once a society reaches a level of economic development that Very Large Amounts are necessary to function (a government treasury based on large scale taxation, used to fund long term or large scale expeditures), a common proxy that is portable, non-perishable, and testable (for fakes) is needed.

"Gold as currency" lovers often cite the relatively limited and fixed amount of gold in the world as a reason to use it, to prevent inflation, which they say "destroys wealth" - a dollar becomes less valuable over just 20 years, because the government just keeps making more of it! Outrageous! And Bitcoin proponents, the ones who aren't speculators or money launderers, say it's got the same benefit of a finite minable space.

But the societal value of money isn't to preserve the buying power of stashes, right?
  #29  
Old 03-22-2020, 12:33 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by robardin View Post
"Gold as currency" lovers often cite the relatively limited and fixed amount of gold in the world as a reason to use it, to prevent inflation, which they say "destroys wealth" - a dollar becomes less valuable over just 20 years, because the government just keeps making more of it! Outrageous! And Bitcoin proponents, the ones who aren't speculators or money launderers, say it's got the same benefit of a finite minable space.
That argument demonstrates why gold supporters shouldn't be in charge of financial policy. A fixed economy is a bad thing. You want an economy that grows; at least as fast as your population is growing but ideally at a faster rate than population. A healthy economy should have a money supply that's proportionate to the size of the economy. A fixed finite money supply will handicap an economy and prevent it from growing beyond a certain size.
  #30  
Old 03-22-2020, 01:23 PM
robardin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That argument demonstrates why gold supporters shouldn't be in charge of financial policy. A fixed economy is a bad thing. You want an economy that grows; at least as fast as your population is growing but ideally at a faster rate than population. A healthy economy should have a money supply that's proportionate to the size of the economy. A fixed finite money supply will handicap an economy and prevent it from growing beyond a certain size.
This is essentially why William Jennings Bryan and co. championed a "silver standard" over a gold standard in the 19th Century; silver was being mined at a far higher rate than gold, meaning using silver as a currency basis would continually inject more into the economy than gold would allow. More of the have-nots, or havent-as-muches, would then be able to improve their economic share of the pie.

Having a government controlled currency allowed for better managing the economy's growth, but at a certain point it seems like we're back to a problem of leverage when we talk about "intrinsic value" versus "growing the wealth of a shared and sophisticated economy". Sure everybody has more money, but if everybody tries to spend their money on the same stuff that has only so much of it to go around, that stuff starts by becoming more expensive, then possibly moves to replace the money as a medium of trade (e.g., bartering for foodstuffs in wartime).
  #31  
Old 03-22-2020, 02:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,831
Gold would still be pretty and used for jewelry, so I suppose several times the value os silver.

Say $300 or $400 per oz.
  #32  
Old 03-22-2020, 04:17 PM
rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,598
I am surprised by the chart. A few countries, ie Haiti, have purchased a few tons of gold since 2009. Seems odd.
I confess I am suspicious, perhaps someone is building a bug-out bag? Hope not.
  #33  
Old 03-22-2020, 06:50 AM
Derleth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,505
Gold is not money, even in theory.

Nobody's money is based on gold anymore, even in theory.

Gold and money are two entirely different things.

Thank you.
  #34  
Old 03-22-2020, 07:33 AM
Ynnad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: The City Different
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Gold is not money, even in theory.

Nobody's money is based on gold anymore, even in theory.

Gold and money are two entirely different things.

Thank you.
Derleth: I am not saying you are wrong. But after thousands of years, a great number of people still think of gold as money. And I believe that it is that kind of thinking that gives gold an artificially high price.
  #35  
Old 03-23-2020, 08:52 AM
Keeve is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: NY/NJ, USA
Posts: 5,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynnad View Post
Derleth: I am not saying you are wrong. But after thousands of years, a great number of people still think of gold as money. And I believe that it is that kind of thinking that gives gold an artificially high price.
I disagree. No one thinks of gold as "money". Many people, possibly everyone, thinks of gold as valuable, but that's an entirely different thing.
  #36  
Old 03-22-2020, 07:20 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,266
I've seen it suggested that it's actually counterproductive for a currency, or a currency standard, to be too useful. Apparently, if people are using it too much for what it's good for, there isn't enough left to use as currency.
  #37  
Old 03-22-2020, 11:13 PM
JasmineOlive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 5
gold is more than worth it! gold has its own value and is much higher than any currency in the world.
  #38  
Old 03-22-2020, 11:16 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasmineOlive View Post
gold is more than worth it! gold has its own value and is much higher than any currency in the world.
I would happily give you a 1/4 oz British Gold Guinea for $5000 in US banknotes.
  #39  
Old 03-23-2020, 07:08 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasmineOlive View Post
gold is more than worth it! gold has its own value and is much higher than any currency in the world.
One can also claim the value of cereal box tops is higher than any currency in the world by this "logic".

How do you compare the value of one thing to currency except by that same currency? And if you do, just look at the massive instability in gold prices over the decades. And how much money you'd lose on average when inflation is taken into account. And that doesn't take into account if you had bought govt. bonds instead and gotten an actual ROI.

Sure, if there are low points and high points and say "Say you bought at X and sold at Y, you made money!" But that's 20/20 hindsight and doesn't apply to the average over time. Pick two random times to buy and sell and odds are you lose. But if you bought a stable currency and sold it at a random time, you'd do better on average.

How on Earth does anyone think that gold is some sort of magic wealth generator?
  #40  
Old 03-23-2020, 08:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
How do you compare the value of one thing to currency except by that same currency? And if you do, just look at the massive instability in gold prices over the decades. And how much money you'd lose on average when inflation is taken into account. And that doesn't take into account if you had bought govt. bonds instead and gotten an actual ROI.
No matter how much you despise gold — or despise the people who don't despise gold — you do your fellow gold haters a disservice by spreading disinformation and thereby lowering their credibility.

In 1970 you could purchase 1 troy ounce of gold in New York City for $36.41. That gold could now be sold for $1500.30. (This ignores costs to store or safeguard your gold.)

Had that same $36.41 been invested in U.S. Treasury bonds (with interest recalculated at the beginning of every September using the 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate) you would now have $730 (ignoring transaction costs).

$1500.30 > $730. Hope this helps.
  #41  
Old 03-23-2020, 11:38 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
..
In 1970 you could purchase 1 troy ounce of gold in New York City for $36.41. That gold could now be sold for $1500.30. (This ignores costs to store or safeguard your gold.)
...
$1500.30 > $730. Hope this helps.
We could do that same with any number of stocks, not to mention real estate, art, collectables, etc.

You also could have bought gold for $2178 in 1980 and sold it for $386 in 2001.

Gold is simply a commodity. It goes up and down.
  #42  
Old 03-23-2020, 11:51 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
We could do that same with any number of stocks, not to mention real estate, art, collectables, etc.

You also could have bought gold for $2178 in 1980 and sold it for $386 in 2001.

Gold is simply a commodity. It goes up and down.
So you're taking my side of the "debate."

Well ...
Quote:
You also could have bought gold for $2178 in 1980
... Except for this gibberish. If it seems to help your side of an "argument" to use so-called "constant dollars", at least say that's what you're doing.

Last edited by septimus; 03-23-2020 at 11:54 AM.
  #43  
Old 03-23-2020, 03:44 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
In 1970 you could purchase 1 troy ounce of gold in New York City for $36.41. That gold could now be sold for $1500.30. (This ignores costs to store or safeguard your gold.)
So you made a selective choice. People point this out. You respond that it's gibberish. I am completely less than impressed.

You keep twisting and twisting and twisting. Claiming all sorts of complete refutation of people's arguments but missing the actual points being made and burying yourself deeper in the process. Even some of your own cites refute you!
  #44  
Old 03-23-2020, 05:01 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,089
I apologize for the following off-topic tirade. But we are here to fight ignorance, and the ignorance I address is huge. Nor do I take kindly to baseless accusations against me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
So you made a selective choice. People point this out. You respond that it's gibberish. I am completely less than impressed.

You keep twisting and twisting and twisting. Claiming all sorts of complete refutation of people's arguments but missing the actual points being made and burying yourself deeper in the process. Even some of your own cites refute you!
Wow. Almost every single sentence you've contributed to this thread, or the other one, has been completely wrong.

Let's start by obliterating your claim, from the other thread,
"Note that many European countries are reducing their gold reserves since they are just a waste of money in terms of storage and other fees."
Upthread we've found a source for central bank sales. In most cases the central bank's gold stock did not change over the last decade, or changed by too little to register given the source's 1-tonne granularity. I now present the results for all European countries whose gold stock changed by 1 tonne or more:
Belarus purchased 24 tonnes of gold during the last decade.
Belgium sold 1 tonne.
Bosnia and Herz purchased 2 tonnes.
Czech Republic sold 4 tonnes.
France purchased 1 tonne.
Germany sold a whopping 37 tonnes, 1% of its stock.
Greece purchased 1 tonne.
Hungary purchased 29 tonnes.
Poland purchased 26 tonnes.
Russia purchased 1464 tonnes
Serbia purchased 7 tonnes.
Turkey purchased 138 tonnes.
Ukraine sold 3 tonnes.
If we exclude Russia (a special case?) this is still a net purchase of 183 tonnes. Without excluding Russia, the net purchase is 1647 tonnes.
Dopers: Please raise your hand if you think this is compatible with ftg's claim
"Note that many European countries are reducing their gold reserves since they are just a waste of money in terms of storage and other fees."
The only significant sale was Germany's. (IIRC that was part of an experiment — they wanted to see how long it would take the N.Y. Fed to deliver Germany's gold!)

Yes, I used 1970 as a starting part for one comparison. I also mentioned that many other starting dates, including some way back in the 1960's, would work even besting the DJIA with dividends reinvested. And I've repeatedly stressed that these comparisons are largely irrelevant anyway to any essential point — I just make them to obliterate the nonsense that gold is ALWAYS a bad investment.

Finally, see if you can understand the following:
When discussing apples, if one of the debaters thinks oranges, specifically seven oranges, would be a more useful example than apples, it is the responsibility of that debater to write the word "oranges."
If instead he discusses an example involving "seven apples", where he actually is talking about "seven oranges" then said debater is remiss.
Do you understand that? To write "apples" when one means "oranges" is inappropriate. Do we need to put that up for a vote also?

"Constant dollars" are sometimes a useful way to think about a matter of economics or pricing. No argument there. In prior posts I bypass the need for inflation adjustment by comparing TWO investments and using nominal dollars at BOTH ends of an investment period. Others may find constant dollars convenient for some purposes.

But so-called "constant dollars" are not dollars. You don't slip them in to a paragraph to inflate your figures hoping Septimus is too dull to notice! Capische?

I'll give Dr. Deth the benefit of the doubt and guess that he Googled over-quickly, missed the word "constant," and didn't notice the absurdity of the number derived. Yet you have no such excuse. I pointed out Dr Deth's blunder and you retort with more gibberish: "twisting and twisting." Seriously: You couldn't even figure this much out??

HTH.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way:

I've never thought of myself as a "gold bug." Until 2019 the last time I purchased gold was trinkets for Mrs. Septimus two decades ago. (I try not to be overly niggardly but Mrs. Septimus prefers automobiles and iPhones to gold trinkets.)

Some months ago, based on my readings, I did sell a moderate-sized fraction of my stocks and used the proceeds to buy gold, both physical and ETF, as a "hedge." I got lucky. I wish I'd traded a larger fraction of my stocks.

I did not buy the gold because I thought we were on the verge of Armageddon. I think I was aware that gold cannot be used as toilet paper, but I bought it anyway. I apologize if any Doper is offended that I purchased gold and thinks that gold buyers are too stupid to post in these forums.
  #45  
Old 03-23-2020, 09:26 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,266
OK. Why did you pick 1970?
  #46  
Old 03-23-2020, 09:50 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,089
Quote:
OK. Why did you pick 1970?
Why did he pick U.S. Treasury bonds? I'm ready to do a comparison with the DJIA to solve the following puzzle, but first would need data showing the dividends paid on the DJIA, since of course we'd reinvest them. Can any good Googler provide that series?
Alice and Bob each inherit $1000 worth of DJIA in 1950. Bob reinvests his dividends, and still has all that stock. Alice also reinvests hers until date X, when she trades all her stocks for gold; she still has all that gold. For what values of X (call this the Alice-win set) would Alice have more wealth than Bob today?
Every single day since Trump's election would be in the Alice win-set! That win-set also includes many dates near market highs since 1997. Several dates in the 1960's or 70's would also be in the Alice win-set if the DJIA yield averaged less than 1.3% and my program is correct.

All of which is beside the point. Gold may or many not outperform some other form of savings over some period — so what? (And the point which it is beside is different than the question OP asks. )
  #47  
Old 03-24-2020, 06:18 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,373
Getting back to the OP, a good benchmark might be tellurium. Its about as common in the earths crust as gold. It is used in solar panels, I don't have a good cite for this but cobbling together a few numbers from over the internet, I think that around 1,700 metric tons of tellurium are used world wide in industry (maybe a bit less), as compared to 700 metric tons of gold (not counting jewelry).

Its price has fluctuated a lot over the last decade when solar panel demand caused a spike which then crashed in 2011 as production increased. So prices ranged from $30 to $450 perk kg. Still its much much cheaper than gold.
  #48  
Old 03-24-2020, 06:37 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,266
You couldn't make functional braces bands out of pure gold-- It's way too soft. It might have been some alloy, though.
  #49  
Old 03-25-2020, 05:39 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,266
The purpose of gold-plating electrical contacts is to prevent corrosion, which is practical or even necessary for some contacts in some applications. For audio equipment, though, yes, it's mostly a scam.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017