Gold is the only real money

[rightwinger]

Gold, in fact, has no intrinsic value. It's only worth that value which someone is willing to offer. Which makes it no different from any other fiat currency,

Well, the value of anything is that which someone is willing to offer. But gold does have use and value outside of its use as currency. So it does fulfill the function of a store of value, unlike paper currency.

What value does gold have that paper currency does not?

Gold is just an arbitrary commodity. It value is based purely on speculation

Gold is used for jewelry, wiring, etc. All goods have value based purely on what people are willing to spend. The difference between commodity money and fiat currency is value other than a medium of exchange.

Bling...no real value

Then what would you consider has "real value?"

 

[pinqy]

Well, the value of anything is that which someone is willing to offer. But gold does have use and value outside of its use as currency. So it does fulfill the function of a store of value, unlike paper currency.

What value does gold have that paper currency does not?

Gold is just an arbitrary commodity. It value is based purely on speculation

Gold is used for jewelry, wiring, etc. All goods have value based purely on what people are willing to spend. The difference between commodity money and fiat currency is value other than a medium of exchange.

Bling...no real value

Then what would you consider has "real value?"

Go back 100 years. What value would that have? Or would you rather go back with gold, silver, iron, copper, etc, in any form?

 

[Marion Morrison]

All other money is fiat currency. Which can be good or bad, but in the United States case, it's bad because the fiat money is controlled by the Jews for their own benefit.

The United States money system is not run for the benefit of the American people, but for private Jewish interests.

Oh yah, It's DA JOOOOOOOOOS!

 

[rightwinger]

What value does gold have that paper currency does not?

Gold is just an arbitrary commodity. It value is based purely on speculation

Gold is used for jewelry, wiring, etc. All goods have value based purely on what people are willing to spend. The difference between commodity money and fiat currency is value other than a medium of exchange.

Bling...no real value

Then what would you consider has "real value?"

Go back 100 years. What value would that have? Or would you rather go back with gold, silver, iron, copper, etc, in any form?

My Wayback Machine is not working

The US has the most powerful economy on the planet. The US Dollar is the gold standard. I will put my faith in the US Government over some shiny metal that is subject to speculation and price manipulation

 

[danielpalos]

All other money is fiat currency. Which can be good or bad, but in the United States case, it's bad because the fiat money is controlled by the Jews for their own benefit.

The United States money system is not run for the benefit of the American people, but for private Jewish interests.

if you can't trust, "international bankers", who can you trust?

 

[pinqy]

Gold is used for jewelry, wiring, etc. All goods have value based purely on what people are willing to spend. The difference between commodity money and fiat currency is value other than a medium of exchange.

Bling...no real value

Then what would you consider has "real value?"

Go back 100 years. What value would that have? Or would you rather go back with gold, silver, iron, copper, etc, in any form?

My Wayback Machine is not working

The US has the most powerful economy on the planet. The US Dollar is the gold standard. I will put my faith in the US Government over some shiny metal that is subject to speculation and price manipulation

Which has nothing to do with whether or not gold (or other commodities) have intrinsic value and serve the function of "store of wealth" where paper currencies do not. I'm not claiming one is superior or preferred to the other. The fact is that for developed economies, store of wealth is an unnecessary function. For that matter, money as a medium of exchange, such as physical currency, isn't that necessary either. I get paid and then pay most of my bills electronically, meaning no physical currency is necessary and "unit of exchange" is the only money function used.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bling...no real value

Then what would you consider has "real value?"

Go back 100 years. What value would that have? Or would you rather go back with gold, silver, iron, copper, etc, in any form?

My Wayback Machine is not working

The US has the most powerful economy on the planet. The US Dollar is the gold standard. I will put my faith in the US Government over some shiny metal that is subject to speculation and price manipulation

Which has nothing to do with whether or not gold (or other commodities) have intrinsic value and serve the function of "store of wealth" where paper currencies do not. I'm not claiming one is superior or preferred to the other. The fact is that for developed economies, store of wealth is an unnecessary function. For that matter, money as a medium of exchange, such as physical currency, isn't that necessary either. I get paid and then pay most of my bills electronically, meaning no physical currency is necessary and "unit of exchange" is the only money function used.

Of course it's 100% absurd to say store of wealth is not important if true none of us would need paper currency or gold.

 

[pinqy]

Then what would you consider has "real value?"

Go back 100 years. What value would that have? Or would you rather go back with gold, silver, iron, copper, etc, in any form?

My Wayback Machine is not working

The US has the most powerful economy on the planet. The US Dollar is the gold standard. I will put my faith in the US Government over some shiny metal that is subject to speculation and price manipulation

Which has nothing to do with whether or not gold (or other commodities) have intrinsic value and serve the function of "store of wealth" where paper currencies do not. I'm not claiming one is superior or preferred to the other. The fact is that for developed economies, store of wealth is an unnecessary function. For that matter, money as a medium of exchange, such as physical currency, isn't that necessary either. I get paid and then pay most of my bills electronically, meaning no physical currency is necessary and "unit of exchange" is the only money function used.

Of course it's 100% absurd to say store of wealth is not important if true none of us would need paper currency or gold.

Paper currency is not a store of wealth. Metals and gems are, beads were commonly used as money during the slave trade period, cigarettes in prison...anything of transferable value or use independent of a particular currency. Paper currency, and modern coins of debased metals, have no value of themselves.

And I didn't say "not important," but "not necessary." My wife uses almost no cash, getting paid by direct deposit, and buying things with debit or credit card...no physical transfer necessary. Bitcoin is epitome of money as solely a unit of account.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Go back 100 years. What value would that have? Or would you rather go back with gold, silver, iron, copper, etc, in any form?

My Wayback Machine is not working

The US has the most powerful economy on the planet. The US Dollar is the gold standard. I will put my faith in the US Government over some shiny metal that is subject to speculation and price manipulation

Which has nothing to do with whether or not gold (or other commodities) have intrinsic value and serve the function of "store of wealth" where paper currencies do not. I'm not claiming one is superior or preferred to the other. The fact is that for developed economies, store of wealth is an unnecessary function. For that matter, money as a medium of exchange, such as physical currency, isn't that necessary either. I get paid and then pay most of my bills electronically, meaning no physical currency is necessary and "unit of exchange" is the only money function used.

Of course it's 100% absurd to say store of wealth is not important if true none of us would need paper currency or gold.

Paper currency is not a store of wealth. Metals and gems are, beads were commonly used as money during the slave trade period, cigarettes in prison...anything of transferable value or use independent of a particular currency. Paper currency, and modern coins of debased metals, have no value of themselves.

And I didn't say "not important," but "not necessary." My wife uses almost no cash, getting paid by direct deposit, and buying things with debit or credit card...no physical transfer necessary. Bitcoin is epitome of money as solely a unit of account.

Paper not a store of wealth then I suppose you would give me yours??

 

[pinqy]

Go back 100 years. What value would that have? Or would you rather go back with gold, silver, iron, copper, etc, in any form?

My Wayback Machine is not working

The US has the most powerful economy on the planet. The US Dollar is the gold standard. I will put my faith in the US Government over some shiny metal that is subject to speculation and price manipulation

Which has nothing to do with whether or not gold (or other commodities) have intrinsic value and serve the function of "store of wealth" where paper currencies do not. I'm not claiming one is superior or preferred to the other. The fact is that for developed economies, store of wealth is an unnecessary function. For that matter, money as a medium of exchange, such as physical currency, isn't that necessary either. I get paid and then pay most of my bills electronically, meaning no physical currency is necessary and "unit of exchange" is the only money function used.

Of course it's 100% absurd to say store of wealth is not important if true none of us would need paper currency or gold.

Paper currency is not a store of wealth. Metals and gems are, beads were commonly used as money during the slave trade period, cigarettes in prison...anything of transferable value or use independent of a particular currency. Paper currency, and modern coins of debased metals, have no value of themselves.

And I didn't say "not important," but "not necessary." My wife uses almost no cash, getting paid by direct deposit, and buying things with debit or credit card...no physical transfer necessary. Bitcoin is epitome of money as solely a unit of account.

Paper not a store of wealth then I suppose you would give me yours??

Sure, I have some old Deutschmarks, Belgian francs, and pre-1998 Russian rubles. Don't confuse "medium of exchange" with "store of value."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My Wayback Machine is not working

The US has the most powerful economy on the planet. The US Dollar is the gold standard. I will put my faith in the US Government over some shiny metal that is subject to speculation and price manipulation

Which has nothing to do with whether or not gold (or other commodities) have intrinsic value and serve the function of "store of wealth" where paper currencies do not. I'm not claiming one is superior or preferred to the other. The fact is that for developed economies, store of wealth is an unnecessary function. For that matter, money as a medium of exchange, such as physical currency, isn't that necessary either. I get paid and then pay most of my bills electronically, meaning no physical currency is necessary and "unit of exchange" is the only money function used.

Of course it's 100% absurd to say store of wealth is not important if true none of us would need paper currency or gold.

Paper currency is not a store of wealth. Metals and gems are, beads were commonly used as money during the slave trade period, cigarettes in prison...anything of transferable value or use independent of a particular currency. Paper currency, and modern coins of debased metals, have no value of themselves.

And I didn't say "not important," but "not necessary." My wife uses almost no cash, getting paid by direct deposit, and buying things with debit or credit card...no physical transfer necessary. Bitcoin is epitome of money as solely a unit of account.

Paper not a store of wealth then I suppose you would give me yours??

Sure, I have some old Deutschmarks, Belgian francs, and pre-1998 Russian rubles. Don't confuse "medium of exchange" with "store of value."

you said paper was not store of wealth. I said great give me yours, and then you changed the subject. You lose!!!

 

[pinqy]

Which has nothing to do with whether or not gold (or other commodities) have intrinsic value and serve the function of "store of wealth" where paper currencies do not. I'm not claiming one is superior or preferred to the other. The fact is that for developed economies, store of wealth is an unnecessary function. For that matter, money as a medium of exchange, such as physical currency, isn't that necessary either. I get paid and then pay most of my bills electronically, meaning no physical currency is necessary and "unit of exchange" is the only money function used.

Of course it's 100% absurd to say store of wealth is not important if true none of us would need paper currency or gold.

Paper currency is not a store of wealth. Metals and gems are, beads were commonly used as money during the slave trade period, cigarettes in prison...anything of transferable value or use independent of a particular currency. Paper currency, and modern coins of debased metals, have no value of themselves.

And I didn't say "not important," but "not necessary." My wife uses almost no cash, getting paid by direct deposit, and buying things with debit or credit card...no physical transfer necessary. Bitcoin is epitome of money as solely a unit of account.

Paper not a store of wealth then I suppose you would give me yours??

Sure, I have some old Deutschmarks, Belgian francs, and pre-1998 Russian rubles. Don't confuse "medium of exchange" with "store of value."

you said paper was not store of wealth. I said great give me yours, and then you changed the subject. You lose!!!

I didn't change the subject. I offered you some of my paper currency. If it was a store of wealth, then the value would be in the paper itself.

Or look at this way: if I printed paper with my picture on it, and marked as being worth 50 Kalganids but also minted a coin of 90% gold, 10% copper weighing at just over 1 Troy ounce, with my bust on it and marked as being worth 20 Kalganids, which would you rather have?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

What is the intrinsic value of gold?

Here is a pretty good explanation of the intrinsic value of gold for those who struggle to understand it- glad,I could help.

Eventually, you will stumble upon gold, and you will realize that it works beautifully as money. It is durable (it never rots or rusts), it is divisible and combinable (unlike diamonds), it is homogeneous (every ounce is the same as every other – unlike cigarettes, seashells, and birthday cakes), and it is scarce (unlike sand or grain). Silver mirrors these attributes, though it seems to be less scarce and thus less valuable per ounce.

It should then become apparent that gold has intrinsic value because of its natural properties and the circumstantial geological composition of the Earth. Perhaps on another planet, if gold extended forth from every hillside, it wouldn’t be practical to use it as money, as truckloads would be required for the smallest of purchases. But we’re not on another planet, and thus gold and other precious metals have proven themselves, over thousands of years, as the most effective type of money. This is where their intrinsic value comes from.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

All other money is fiat currency

Gold, in fact, has no intrinsic value. It's only worth that value which someone is willing to offer. Which makes it no different from any other fiat currency,

You are clearly not an economist.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

All other money is fiat currency

Gold, in fact, has no intrinsic value. It's only worth that value which someone is willing to offer. Which makes it no different from any other fiat currency,

Well, the value of anything is that which someone is willing to offer. But gold does have use and value outside of its use as currency. So it does fulfill the function of a store of value, unlike paper currency.

What value does gold have that paper currency does not?

Gold is just an arbitrary commodity. It value is based purely on speculation

Gold is used for jewelry, wiring, etc. All goods have value based purely on what people are willing to spend. The difference between commodity money and fiat currency is value other than a medium of exchange.

Bling...no real value

Our currency is based on the economic power of the US. I would rather trust that than some shiny metal

Guess what you'll buy if and when the economy of the US and dollar loses value. AU.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Consider-

In 1950 the average cost cost of House was $8000 which was about 200 ounces of gold, because gold was valued at $40/oz.

Those same 200 ounces of gold today will buy you a $250,000 house, but had you kept your wealth in the US dollar you would be lucky to pay the rent on that house for one year. Yes, gold,is definitely a store of value.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Of course it's 100% absurd to say store of wealth is not important if true none of us would need paper currency or gold.

Paper currency is not a store of wealth. Metals and gems are, beads were commonly used as money during the slave trade period, cigarettes in prison...anything of transferable value or use independent of a particular currency. Paper currency, and modern coins of debased metals, have no value of themselves.

And I didn't say "not important," but "not necessary." My wife uses almost no cash, getting paid by direct deposit, and buying things with debit or credit card...no physical transfer necessary. Bitcoin is epitome of money as solely a unit of account.

Paper not a store of wealth then I suppose you would give me yours??

Sure, I have some old Deutschmarks, Belgian francs, and pre-1998 Russian rubles. Don't confuse "medium of exchange" with "store of value."

you said paper was not store of wealth. I said great give me yours, and then you changed the subject. You lose!!!

I didn't change the subject. I offered you some of my paper currency. If it was a store of wealth, then the value would be in the paper itself.

Or look at this way: if I printed paper with my picture on it, and marked as being worth 50 Kalganids but also minted a coin of 90% gold, 10% copper weighing at just over 1 Troy ounce, with my bust on it and marked as being worth 20 Kalganids, which would you rather have?

The subject was paper currency when you lost the debate you changed the subject to defunct paper currency's. Now do you understand?

 

[pinqy]

Paper currency is not a store of wealth. Metals and gems are, beads were commonly used as money during the slave trade period, cigarettes in prison...anything of transferable value or use independent of a particular currency. Paper currency, and modern coins of debased metals, have no value of themselves.

And I didn't say "not important," but "not necessary." My wife uses almost no cash, getting paid by direct deposit, and buying things with debit or credit card...no physical transfer necessary. Bitcoin is epitome of money as solely a unit of account.

Paper not a store of wealth then I suppose you would give me yours??

Sure, I have some old Deutschmarks, Belgian francs, and pre-1998 Russian rubles. Don't confuse "medium of exchange" with "store of value."

you said paper was not store of wealth. I said great give me yours, and then you changed the subject. You lose!!!

I didn't change the subject. I offered you some of my paper currency. If it was a store of wealth, then the value would be in the paper itself.

Or look at this way: if I printed paper with my picture on it, and marked as being worth 50 Kalganids but also minted a coin of 90% gold, 10% copper weighing at just over 1 Troy ounce, with my bust on it and marked as being worth 20 Kalganids, which would you rather have?

The subject was paper currency when you lost the debate you changed the subject to defunct paper currency's. Now do you understand?

I didn't lose the debate, and defunct paper currencies are still paper currencies, and thus, on-topic.

Paper currencies are not a store of wealth,but that doesn't mean they don't have value. they are a medium of exchange.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I offered you some of my paper currency.

obviously I was talking about your US Dollars which you would not give me because of value!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Paper not a store of wealth then I suppose you would give me yours??

Sure, I have some old Deutschmarks, Belgian francs, and pre-1998 Russian rubles. Don't confuse "medium of exchange" with "store of value."

you said paper was not store of wealth. I said great give me yours, and then you changed the subject. You lose!!!

I didn't change the subject. I offered you some of my paper currency. If it was a store of wealth, then the value would be in the paper itself.

Or look at this way: if I printed paper with my picture on it, and marked as being worth 50 Kalganids but also minted a coin of 90% gold, 10% copper weighing at just over 1 Troy ounce, with my bust on it and marked as being worth 20 Kalganids, which would you rather have?

The subject was paper currency when you lost the debate you changed the subject to defunct paper currency's. Now do you understand?

I didn't lose the debate, and defunct paper currencies are still paper currencies, and thus, on-topic.

Paper currencies are not a store of wealth,but that doesn't mean they don't have value. they are a medium of exchange.

don't be silly, paper and gold could be worthless tomorrow so both are equal which is why 99% of the world economists support paper.