Gold is worse than fiat | Bitcointalksearch.org

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1002

amarha

Quote from: Invest0r on May 17, 2013, 10:48:23 PM

BitBar solves all the problems Cheesy

An cryptocurrency bar with a higher value than bitcoin in theory.

visit bitbar.info for more information

Wow. This is pretty much the worst. This should have a negative value. You should pay me to hold "BitBars".

Invest0r

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

BitBar solves all the problems Cheesy

An cryptocurrency bar with a higher value than bitcoin in theory.

visit bitbar.info for more information

altsay

sr. member

Activity: 359

Merit: 250

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 01, 2013, 11:03:23 AM

It would take 1 minute to dig a hole with a backhoe that would take an hour to dig with a shovel. The amount of labor is different but the result is the same. Furthermore, the value of the hole does not depend on how much labor it took to dig it.

+1

The value of the hole is what you'll make out of it. More labor cost cannot be an exuse for claiming it has more value in dollar, or gold, or silver, or bitcoins, or alt coins etc.

altsay

sr. member

Activity: 359

Merit: 250

I'll go and let the golden friend Ron Paul read this thread.

bitcoinscanada

member

Activity: 108

Merit: 10

Quote from: coincrunch on April 27, 2013, 05:42:53 PM

I've been buying silver since it was $4 an ounce 10 years ago. I'm way ahead and will continue to buy. This is a minor setback, the rally will continue.

The fed is printing money at a record pace, degrading your dollars daily.

in the 1940s, the silver content in three mercury dimes would buy you a gallon of gas. Today.. it will still buy you a gallon of gas. Seems like a pretty effective hedge to me

+1

bigbeninlondon

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 14, 2013, 10:10:42 AM

Second, the costs of the backhoe and the shovel are not labor. They are capital.

You can trade your labor for capital, and capital for labor, so the transitive property loosely applies.

debianlinux

full member

Activity: 221

Merit: 100

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 14, 2013, 10:10:42 AM

Quote from: debianlinux on May 14, 2013, 09:38:15 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 01, 2013, 11:03:23 AM

It would take 1 minute to dig a hole with a backhoe that would take an hour to dig with a shovel. The amount of labor is different but the result is the same. Furthermore, the value of the hole does not depend on how much labor it took to dig it.

A 1 hour shovel sized hole will cost far less to be dug by the man with the shovel than by the man with backhoe. The man with the backhoe has equipment overhead that must be paid for. Which digging implement is better suited is based on scale and circumstances. For instance, the man with the shovel can dig that same hole in your basement without destroying any structure. On the other hand the man with the backhoe can dig a 4,000 sqft foundation in the time it takes the man with the shovel to dig out a septic tank.

So, no, the results are not necessarily the same and your original supposition was off by a significant margin with regards to cost vs scale.

First, my argument is crystal clear. The value of something does not depend on the amount of labor it takes to produce it. The value of a hole does not depend on how it was dug. You are trying to muddy this with irrelevant scenarios.

Second, the costs of the backhoe and the shovel are not labor. They are capital.

It takes astronomically more labor to produce a backhoe over a shovel. Your argument tries to abstract the fact that great deal of manhours actually were involved in reducing the amount of time it took for the man with the backhoe to dig that hole. You abstract it by removing from the equation and calling it "capital" as if it doesn't contribute. Fact is a hole that can be dug in one hour with a shovel will always be far more expensive to dig with a backhoe and it is not economically feasible, ever, to do so.

What you call irrelevant I call factoring in reality instead of ideal abstractions with no basis in reality.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: debianlinux on May 14, 2013, 09:38:15 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 01, 2013, 11:03:23 AM

It would take 1 minute to dig a hole with a backhoe that would take an hour to dig with a shovel. The amount of labor is different but the result is the same. Furthermore, the value of the hole does not depend on how much labor it took to dig it.

A 1 hour shovel sized hole will cost far less to be dug by the man with the shovel than by the man with backhoe. The man with the backhoe has equipment overhead that must be paid for. Which digging implement is better suited is based on scale and circumstances. For instance, the man with the shovel can dig that same hole in your basement without destroying any structure. On the other hand the man with the backhoe can dig a 4,000 sqft foundation in the time it takes the man with the shovel to dig out a septic tank.

So, no, the results are not necessarily the same and your original supposition was off by a significant margin with regards to cost vs scale.

First, my argument is crystal clear. The value of something does not depend on the amount of labor it takes to produce it. The value of a hole does not depend on how it was dug. You are trying to muddy this with irrelevant scenarios.

Second, the costs of the backhoe and the shovel are not labor. They are capital.

debianlinux

full member

Activity: 221

Merit: 100

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 01, 2013, 11:03:23 AM

Quote from: paraipan on May 01, 2013, 10:54:01 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on May 01, 2013, 10:39:19 AM

...

But I agree with you. Money is a poor representative of labor because it represents the result of the labor and not the labor itself.

Money represents the result of labor in a determined lapse of time which equals purchasing power.

We're not very far from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

It would take 1 minute to dig a hole with a backhoe that would take an hour to dig with a shovel. The amount of labor is different but the result is the same. Furthermore, the value of the hole does not depend on how much labor it took to dig it.

A 1 hour shovel sized hole will cost far less to be dug by the man with the shovel than by the man with backhoe. The man with the backhoe has equipment overhead that must be paid for. Which digging implement is better suited is based on scale and circumstances. For instance, the man with the shovel can dig that same hole in your basement without destroying any structure. On the other hand the man with the backhoe can dig a 4,000 sqft foundation in the time it takes the man with the shovel to dig out a septic tank.

So, no, the results are not necessarily the same and your original supposition was off by a significant margin with regards to cost vs scale.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: paraipan on May 09, 2013, 08:50:39 AM

Quote from: Razick on May 09, 2013, 08:38:34 AM

...

I'm not saying I like the Dollar, I'm just saying that it is more popular than gold not because it's a better currency, but because of what we're allowed to do with it.

Imagine you have a system similar to that omnipresent dollar, and it has the properties of a good currency at the same time. How would you value that system?

Dollar, gold , bitcoin you name it is only a system that passes on information, and rather important one, that goes about real work value in certain amount of time. Mess up with it and you control how people act or live their lives. Btw, I don't see how anyone can impede you do things with any good tool, like a hammer for example which it can build or kill for it's owner, so why money should be different? I don't subscribe to "we're allowed to do things with it".

Exactly, at a higher abstraction level it does not matter what kind of physical or digital form it takes, it's all about the properties of the system. I think a good system should be able to present some kind of general fairness, gold is much better in this regards, at least anyone can dig out gold without become the central bank, and the labour inputed in creating money is equal to the worth of money itself

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: Razick on May 09, 2013, 08:38:34 AM

...

I'm not saying I like the Dollar, I'm just saying that it is more popular than gold not because it's a better currency, but because of what we're allowed to do with it.

Imagine you have a system similar to that omnipresent dollar, and it has the properties of a good currency at the same time. How would you value that system?

Dollar, gold , bitcoin you name it is only a system that passes on information, and rather important one, that goes about real work value in certain amount of time. Mess up with it and you control how people act or live their lives. Btw, I don't see how anyone can impede you do things with any good tool, like a hammer for example which it can build or kill for it's owner, so why money should be different? I don't subscribe to "we're allowed to do things with it".

Razick

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1003

Quote from: johnyj on May 07, 2013, 08:51:37 AM

Quote from: Razick on May 07, 2013, 08:14:22 AM

There wouldn't be a fee to exchange gold if it was a country's main currency, because you would be trading directly for gold. That's like an American saying the USD is better than the EUR solely because he has to pay an exchange fee each time he spends it.

Dollars are more convenient than gold for other reasons: Less bulky, you don't have to exchange them before you spend them, everyone is paid in them and you are legally obligated to accept them as payment for debt. In order to have the same benefits (besides the last one) gold needs to be commonly accepted and available in certificate form, in other words, the way the Dollar used to be when it was backed by gold.

If everyone can generate their own dollar like dig out gold, then it is true, otherwise there is a question why only a few selected person can do that

For example, in an election one party promise to not print more money and another party promise to print 4x more money, then you have a choice. Bitcoin is such kind of choice, and it is not backed by any political organization

I'm not saying I like the Dollar, I'm just saying that it is more popular than gold not because it's a better currency, but because of what we're allowed to do with it.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: Razick on May 07, 2013, 08:14:22 AM

There wouldn't be a fee to exchange gold if it was a country's main currency, because you would be trading directly for gold. That's like an American saying the USD is better than the EUR solely because he has to pay an exchange fee each time he spends it.

Dollars are more convenient than gold for other reasons: Less bulky, you don't have to exchange them before you spend them, everyone is paid in them and you are legally obligated to accept them as payment for debt. In order to have the same benefits (besides the last one) gold needs to be commonly accepted and available in certificate form, in other words, the way the Dollar used to be when it was backed by gold.

If everyone can generate their own dollar like dig out gold, then it is true, otherwise there is a question why only a few selected person can do that

For example, in an election one party promise to not print more money and another party promise to print 4x more money, then you have a choice. Bitcoin is such kind of choice, and it is not backed by any political organization

Razick

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1003

There wouldn't be a fee to exchange gold if it was a country's main currency, because you would be trading directly for gold. That's like an American saying the USD is better than the EUR solely because he has to pay an exchange fee each time he spends it.

Dollars are more convenient than gold for other reasons: Less bulky, you don't have to exchange them before you spend them, everyone is paid in them and you are legally obligated to accept them as payment for debt. In order to have the same benefits (besides the last one) gold needs to be commonly accepted and available in certificate form, in other words, the way the Dollar used to be when it was backed by gold.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Stampbit on May 02, 2013, 12:16:48 PM

I used to believe in gold until i learned that its price is controlled by 5 UK gold brokers (banks), a couple of which are responsible for things like LIBOR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing

Look, don't lose your faith. After all, what would you believe in? Gold is good, and it's shiny and heavy and women love it. What's not to like about gold? As for the price, it can only go up. You have only had a fleeting moment of doubt. We all do, but those moments are moments of weakness. Now what will you do, embrace, and fall into weakness, and fail, or stand up strong, and believe?

Trust me. I'm here to help you. Now go ahead and give me all that cold hard cash in your wallet. Here are your yellow coins.

And remember - believe!

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Ekaros on May 02, 2013, 11:44:30 AM

Coins aren't such a fine idea...

I'm not sure about how well now days the absolute silver and other metal contents could be detected, reliably on the site by anyone. In past currency debasement was rather common I have understood. And it's rather hard to track various circulating currencies in such case and there will be many.

Very reliably with precision scales and a test kit.

bigbeninlondon

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: Ekaros on May 02, 2013, 11:44:30 AM

Coins aren't such a fine idea...

I'm not sure about how well now days the absolute silver and other metal contents could be detected, reliably on the site by anyone. In past currency debasement was rather common I have understood. And it's rather hard to track various circulating currencies in such case and there will be many.

Yes, debasement was common historically, but it's difficult to mint coins as an individual and small denominations (in silver) aren't usually worth the trouble. The bigger problem was shaving; where someone would shave little bits off of every coin and save that. This was mitigated by having reeded edges, so you could see if they'd been shaved.

You can hear the sound of a silver coin vs a coin in other metal if you listen for it.

Stampbit

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

I used to believe in gold until i learned that its price is controlled by 5 UK gold brokers (banks), a couple of which are responsible for things like LIBOR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing

Ekaros

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Coins aren't such a fine idea...

I'm not sure about how well now days the absolute silver and other metal contents could be detected, reliably on the site by anyone. In past currency debasement was rather common I have understood. And it's rather hard to track various circulating currencies in such case and there will be many.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: ShireSilver on May 02, 2013, 07:48:07 AM

The Worgl experiment never lasted long enough to be a good test case. Just like when the Fed inflates the currency there is often a temporary boost to the economy, it actually does long term harm to the system; and the same probably would have been true in the Worgl case if it had run long enough.

Let people freely decide what they want to use, and let the market sort it out. That's the only fair way, and the only logical way. Go ahead and try using stuff like freicoin if you want, but I am going to stay as far away from that as I can because I personally want my money to work for me, not for someone's twisted idea of "the good of society".

At a small town scale, it might work very well, people will spend all their earned depreciating money quickly, thus create lots of spending. But in a larger economy, people will have the possibility to save in other form, this will push up the price of potential saving medium like gold/silver/bitcoin while the real effect of stimulate spending becomes less, especially when living condition is already at a decent level

Topic: Gold is worse than fiat (Read 5401 times)