Of course, the above is an oversimplification. There’s a cutoff, where increased rarity causes value to drop, simply because it’s not popular enough. I don’t remember the specific gems, but there are gems that are really lovely, have great attributes, but are so rare people don’t know about them. As a result, they’re not as expensive as one might imagine.
Gold is also very difficult to fake. It’s extremely dense, far denser than any cheap substitute. This is a nice attribute in a currency.
Actually before the Hall–Héroult process came along, electricity wasn’t used for smelting aluminum ore at all. Instead the alumina would be melted at 2,000°C in a vacuum with elemental sodium. Just that first step – the 2,000° – was expensive to say nothing of the cost of the sodium. With the Hall–Héroult process, cryolite is melted at a more reasonable 1,012°C and the alumina simply dissolves in it, like sugar in hot water. I suspect that the cheaper electricity circa 1886 might have what induced Hall and Héroult to try something new in their independent discoveries.
Scroll down to the Impact section for a brief mention of the prior process and a mention that the Washington Monument cap is of aluminum.
Gold is “valuable” (i.e. has a market cost beyond its production cost) because it has the first-mover advantage for a goods proxy–currency.
It’s not really “first” if you take into consideration shells or stones or crap like that, but it definitely obtained FMA once we doped out how to refine metals.
The FMA for gold has created an incredible ubiquity for its position as a proxy for goods.
In short, it became the universal currency because it got there first in human history.
Lots of its features contribute to this. It’s common, but not too common. It’s dense, so a small amount of gold makes a great currency where a giant carved stone is ridiculously inconvenient. It is easily standardized (versus a gemstone, say). It has actual utility because of its physical properties. And so on…
But mostly, it is valuable because it got there first (versus, say, platinum or tiger penises).
Strange but true - chiefs tended to have the least goods of anybody. When archeologists dig up an ancient village, the chief’s hut has the least items in it. Why? Originally a chief’s only job was to collect and distribute goods. He was in charge of passing out food, weapons, pots, etc. He therefore tended not to keep too much for himself, as it might appear improper or unfair and someone might try to ‘dethrone’ him.
This went away when societies grew and became more hierarchical.
To paraphrase “Big Bang Theory,” it’s a non-optional social convention.
It kinda goes with the malleable thing, due to it’s chemical properties. The same chemical properties that result in malleability also go with conductivity, so aluminum, copper, and silver are also malleable, approximately in proportion to their conductivity. Gold just happens to be the only metal that’s commonly found (fairly) pure as metal, naturally, because it doesn’t corrode (i.e. react with reactive shit in the environment, like oxygen), so geological processes tend to concentrate it as actual metal, rather than as ore. Gold’s about the only thing that comes out of a high-temperature, high-pressure, geological process as slag, a pure, solid, and (most importantly) useful element.
Its usefulness in electronics is the ‘conductivity’, and the ‘doesn’t corrode’. Both are necessary chemical properties to result in you being able to find ‘pretty, easily worked metal lumps, just lying there, in the creek’. But ‘conductivity’, and ‘doesn’t corrode’ come from entirely unrelated properties. All the other ‘high conductivity’ metals can, and do, corrode. Gold is used because it can be spread that thin, and it won’t corrode. And it’ll conduct your voltage…
To put this part of the OP in perspective, diamonds are pretty much the top of the scale for hardness, but they aren’t very tough. A lot of people confuse this. Scratch a diamond against almost anything else and the diamond always wins. Diamonds aren’t tough though. Whack a diamond with a hammer and you’ll easily shatter it. Diamonds can be chipped or broken very easily. This latter property really limits the practical use of diamonds.
Diamonds aren’t really even all that rare, contrary to what the diamond industry wants you to believe. Their value is based mostly on good advertising.
So in that respect, diamonds are a lot like gold. Their value comes mostly from us silly humans going “ooh, shiny!”
I’d like to see a cite for that. I’d especially like to know how an archeologist determines that such an itemless hut belongs to a “chief”, and how they know what the function of a “chief” was in a pre-literate society.
details.
It is an amazing coincidence.
It had such a high value back in ancient times. And now in modern times it’s an absolute must for some manufacturing industries. Like electronics and semiconductors.
Tungsten is a cheap substitute, and is as dense. So is depleted uranium, though that’s a bit artificial.
Anyway, it’s all about scarcity. Sure, gold is useful for a few things, but it’s really in the bottom rung of useful metals. If it were as cheap as lead, what extra things would we use it for? It’s too soft to be structural. It’s not as conductive as copper. It’s non-corrosive nature is useful–but only when used as a plating, where it’s already generally cheap enough to be useful (the cost isn’t in the metal). It has too high a melting point to be good for casting and such.
Mainly, it would be useful as a counterweight/ballast material–a replacement for lead or (occasionally) tungsten/depleted uranium (where density is critical). Not really that glamorous an application.
Contrast with, say, aluminum, where a large decrease in cost would open up a world of new possibilities, such as high-efficiency all-aluminum cars (where it’s not yet cheap enough to be commonplace).