Pages:
Author

Topic: The price of gas is still 20 cents, in 90% silver dimes. (Read 7267 times)

full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
That's awesome. It's not like you can legally melt down the coins though, which sucks.

There is no need to, and if there ever was a need to do so, that law is going to lack force without a functional government.
It's not illegal to melt silver coins in the US, hasn't been since a brief ban in the late 60's. Many refiners melt silver coins. There is currently a melt and export ban only on pennies and nickels (specifically exempting silver war nickels) which began in late 2006.
http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/?action=press_release&ID=724.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
So you've still got no answer to the question, just a whole lot of reasons why you can't answer it. 


If that's all that you could understand from my responses, then I would guess that I can't answer it for you.

Quote

Corporations are too dishonest (highly ironic, given that want you deregulate them to full power over the world),


I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  Try and understand the differences in the ideologies before displaying your ignorance.  Corporations are a creation of the state, and thus the state has the right to regulate them.  I'm opposed to regulations without basis or merit, which just happens to be the majority of them in our modern world.  That said, not all companies are corporations.  Corporations exist for the purpose of limitation of liability, which wouldn't even be allowed in a true free market economy.  Private companies that do not seek to limit their liabilities by hiding behind the skirt of mama state should not have to deal with the false regulations imposed by that same state.

Quote
financials are too hard for you to understand, lots of baseless claims... but no actual answer to why corporations are not buying up gold like it's going out of style.

Yeah, I don't think you're going to make it.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
So you've still got no answer to the question, just a whole lot of reasons why you can't answer it.  Corporations are too dishonest (highly ironic, given that want you deregulate them to full power over the world), financials are too hard for you to understand, lots of baseless claims... but no actual answer to why corporations are not buying up gold like it's going out of style.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
You seem to assume that the publicly available financial statements honestly reflect reality.  Any rational review of the past statements from such corporations such as GM, Enron and half of the Fortune 500 should expose the lie in this belief for even yourself.  

Again again, your lack of accounting knowledge shows.  Enron didn't lie.  GM definitely didn't lie.  Half the Fortune 500 companies don't lie.


I didn't say that they lied.  Don't try and put words in my mouth.  I said that their financial statements don't reflect the reality.  A lie implies the intent to deceive, which I don't believe that most corporate auditors participate in.  They simply don't know all the details themselves, because those individuals within the corporation that oversee those datasets have many incentives (personal, professional and political) to not share them.  The financial statements often don't reflect reality, in part, because you believe that you can interpret them.  But you can't, and neither can I.  No one really can, outside of the insiders who helped to create them.  They exist to blow sunshine up the skirts of regulators and mutual fund managers alike, and they work very well at this.  The only detail of any value that I've ever been able to grok from any of those statements is, whenever those things are all sunshine and happiness, it's often because the dark clouds are so dark that even the insiders don't have a viable avoidance stragedy and are afraid to put it into ink for fear of making it too real.  I exited from a strong position in GE common stock, based mostly on the overly optimistic annual report, the Thursday prior to a rumor about the sale of GE core manufacturing plants (such as Louisville Appliance Park) sent the stock price from over $30 to $12 over the following several weeks around May of 2008.  That one annual report saved me quite a tidy sum.  It's what those financial statements don't say that is the most valuable.


Those facilities can, and generally are, provided by the oil companies as part of the futures contracts.  Thus oil and steel can be bought and sold as easily as corporate bonds, and thus are liquid assets.  I can buy a futures contract for vastly more oil than I can actually do anything with, with a built in delivery date three months out, and sell it to a refinery (or anyone else) two days before delivery confirmation.


Holding futures contracts with absolutely no intent of taking delivery != holding physical oil.  That type of activity is used for hedging and doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with what you were talking about.  Keep trying to rationalize it though, if you travel down enough irrelevant roads you might be able to salavage your grossly incorrect original statement.


Hedging is one rationalle, not the only rationalle.  That said, just what do you think that buying bonds are intenteded to do for a company, if not to hedge against inflation of the fiat currency? That's also what gold is good for, btw.
As noted above, yes they are liquid enough to be considered as part of the 'cash reserve' figure in a summary financial statement, if the trading of such commodities is not a fundamental part of the corporation's core business model.


See above.  Contracts for the purpose of hedging are not physical assets.  Physical assets are not liquid.


Who do you think that you are arguing here? Logically correct, but still irrelevant to the topic.  Try and focus.
This seems like a great place for a quote from a recent Wiskey & Gunpowder article (commodities traders, Wiskey & Gunpowder, get it?)

"Oh dear. The gold price in dollars is volatile because the US dollar is volatile. An ounce of gold has almost always bought you a nice suit at any time in history.


Good thing I bought a suit last month, because their prices have shot up over $300 since then.   Roll Eyes


The gold/suit example is the most ridiculous, not to mention untrue, (and most often used by the gold bugs) of all.  I didn't realize that suits were the best (or even a good) reference for comparative value.  Someone tell the Fed to stop using a large basket of goods to calculate CPI and just use the average price of a suit.

Of course you would focus on the bit about the suit, and ignore the point completely.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you simply didn't understand the point.

Gold isn't an investment.  Gold is money.  If you are buying gold, silver or even oil futures as a speculative investment, you are as likely as not to lose capital.  If you are seeking an alternative currency to the default, gold is (historicly and generally) the best choice for capital preservation.  I.e. hedging against currency risks.  Most people would simply call this "saving".
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
You seem to assume that the publicly available financial statements honestly reflect reality.  Any rational review of the past statements from such corporations such as GM, Enron and half of the Fortune 500 should expose the lie in this belief for even yourself. 

Again again, your lack of accounting knowledge shows.  Enron didn't lie.  GM definitely didn't lie.  Half the Fortune 500 companies don't lie.

Enron used created accounting that isn't allowed anymore.  It wasn't lies, it just took an intelligent person knowing what they're looking for to find out what condition the company was actually in.  Everyone was too busy being greedy and getting rich off the stock that no one gave enough of a shit to give the financials any more than a quick glance - not at all unlike the Madoff scheme.

GM didn't lie, they just sucked.  Everyone knew and acknowledged they sucked except the management, which is why they went down the shitter.  There was no false financial statements involved.

Get your facts straight before attempting to BS.





Those facilities can, and generally are, provided by the oil companies as part of the futures contracts.  Thus oil and steel can be bought and sold as easily as corporate bonds, and thus are liquid assets.  I can buy a futures contract for vastly more oil than I can actually do anything with, with a built in delivery date three months out, and sell it to a refinery (or anyone else) two days before delivery confirmation.


Holding futures contracts with absolutely no intent of taking delivery != holding physical oil.  That type of activity is used for hedging and doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with what you were talking about.  Keep trying to rationalize it though, if you travel down enough irrelevant roads you might be able to salavage your grossly incorrect original statement.



As noted above, yes they are liquid enough to be considered as part of the 'cash reserve' figure in a summary financial statement, if the trading of such commodities is not a fundamental part of the corporation's core business model. 


See above.  Contracts for the purpose of hedging are not physical assets.  Physical assets are not liquid.




This seems like a great place for a quote from a recent Wiskey & Gunpowder article (commodities traders, Wiskey & Gunpowder, get it?)

"Oh dear. The gold price in dollars is volatile because the US dollar is volatile. An ounce of gold has almost always bought you a nice suit at any time in history.


Good thing I bought a suit last month, because their prices have shot up over $300 since then.   Roll Eyes


The gold/suit example is the most ridiculous, not to mention untrue, (and most often used by the gold bugs) of all.  I didn't realize that suits were the best (or even a good) reference for comparative value.  Someone tell the Fed to stop using a large basket of goods to calculate CPI and just use the average price of a suit.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
Some do, some don't.  We can't really know to what degree that those who do, do so; nor can we know if those that we don't think do, actually don't.  For either of us to speculate on which do or do not, would be a particularly futile form of mental masturbation.  Again, I'm not willing to play in the dirt with you.  Not again.

You don't have to speculate.  You claim has now change to: "some do, some don't".  Provide a sitation for that claim.


I have.


There is no defining distinction.  Not one that can be agreed upon by all players, anyway.  The differences are both personal to the observer and temporal.


There's absolutely a defining distriction and if you knew even one iota about accounting you'd know exactly what that defining distinction is: liquidity.


Corporate paper can be offed in a matter of minutes through totally electronic means with little change in value.  Oil and steel require massive infrastructure and physical containment areas. 


Those facilities can, and generally are, provided by the oil companies as part of the futures contracts.  Thus oil and steel can be bought and sold as easily as corporate bonds, and thus are liquid assets.  I can buy a futures contract for vastly more oil than I can actually do anything with, with a built in delivery date three months out, and sell it to a refinery (or anyone else) two days before delivery confirmation.

This is one reason that companys might not (again, we can't really know what they do if they don't really want to tell us) invest liquid reserves into gold while the general statement that gold is history's overall greatest store of value remains true. 


Boils down to: gold is the best store of value, but it might not be the best store of value.

Got it.

This seems like a great place for a quote from a recent Wiskey & Gunpowder article (commodities traders, Wiskey & Gunpowder, get it?)

"Oh dear. The gold price in dollars is volatile because the US dollar is volatile. An ounce of gold has almost always bought you a nice suit at any time in history. The volatility in the gold/dollar exchange rate is all on the dollar’s end. And that’s because the supply of dollars is always increasing. Also, the futures exchanges have been pretty active boosting margin requirements on gold contracts. That’s made for some larger-than-normal price moves. But the value? Rock steady over time, baby.

And that’s the point. Gold isn’t really an investment. It’s money. And it’s money that holds value well over time. You only worry about capital gains if you’re investing in gold. If you’re buying money, you’re more focused on preserving purchasing power."

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/you-can%e2%80%99t-eat-asset-allocation-either/
Quote


I'll let you in a little secret.  Large corporations do not hold their cash reserves in gold because gold is NOT a good store of value.  Gold is a speculative investment that has a history of sharp rises and falls based on panic situations.  Gold does well when times are bad and does terrible when times are good.  It is not a measure of absolute value; it is merely a measure of fear.

Yeah, things are going to get bad in the next couple of years.  I don't think you're going to make it.
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 0
I wouldn't trade my silver dollar for five gallons of gas, I'll tell you that.  Also a nickel is now worth six cents and will be soon made of zinc.  Right now they're 25% nickel and 75% copper.  Collecting nickels is a risk free metals play, but where do you put em all?
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
Some do, some don't.  We can't really know to what degree that those who do, do so; nor can we know if those that we don't think do, actually don't.  For either of us to speculate on which do or do not, would be a particularly futile form of mental masturbation.  Again, I'm not willing to play in the dirt with you.  Not again.

You don't have to speculate.  You claim has now change to: "some do, some don't".  Provide a sitation for that claim.


I know damn well they don't and I don't have to speculate because I can simply look at the publically available financial statements.  Gold and silver are NOT included in cash figures, therefore money in cash is money NOT in gold and silver.





There is no defining distinction.  Not one that can be agreed upon by all players, anyway.  The differences are both personal to the observer and temporal.


There's absolutely a defining distriction and if you knew even one iota about accounting you'd know exactly what that defining distinction is: liquidity.

Corporate paper can be offed in a matter of minutes through totally electronic means with little change in value.  Oil and steel require massive infrastructure and physical containment areas.  They require finding scarce buyers for the large quantities and slow transportation.  Physical investments are NOT liquid which is, again, why gold and silver are NOT part of the "cash" figure.



This is one reason that companys might not (again, we can't really know what they do if they don't really want to tell us) invest liquid reserves into gold while the general statement that gold is history's overall greatest store of value remains true. 


Boils down to: gold is the best store of value, but it might not be the best store of value.

Got it.


I'll let you in a little secret.  Large corporations do not hold their cash reserves in gold because gold is NOT a good store of value.  Gold is a speculative investment that has a history of sharp rises and falls based on panic situations.  Gold does well when times are bad and does terrible when times are good.  It is not a measure of absolute value; it is merely a measure of fear.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
The same tune just keeps playing over and over again... sidestep sidestep sidestep, avoid avoid avoid... sing it with me!


So you refuse to answer my question, you refuse to provide evidence to support your bold claim, and you continue to contradict yourself by saying gold and silver are the best stores of value but companies choose cash as their value store of choice because gold and silver are not the best stores of value.


Yes, I do refuse to play your game.

Quote

Just to recap, the question is: why do major corporations not convert their cash stores into gold?  


And a summary of my answer...

Some do, some don't.  We can't really know to what degree that those who do, do so; nor can we know if those that we don't think do, actually don't.  For either of us to speculate on which do or do not, would be a particularly futile form of mental masturbation.  Again, I'm not willing to play in the dirt with you.  Not again.

Quote

This has nothing to do with investments in oil and steel, we're talking about CASH RESERVES AND VALUE STORE, not investments.


There is no defining distinction.  Not one that can be agreed upon by all players, anyway.  The differences are both personal to the observer and temporal.

Quote

 If gold and silver are THE BEST and MOST STABLE stores of value (which is exactly you claim)


In general, and over long periods, yes.  Local, and near term conditions can render such a statement overly broad, and thus false for a particular set of conditions.  Not knowing any particulars, or not caring enough to do the research, any particular individual investor (saver) or company is likely to do as well or better with gold than anything else.  However, there are many companies with enough 'cash' to manage that hiring a finance manager to do the research is worthwhile.  This is one reason that companys might not (again, we can't really know what they do if they don't really want to tell us) invest liquid reserves into gold while the general statement that gold is history's overall greatest store of value remains true.  Another possible reason is that said finance manager is, in fact, criminally irresponsible and his employer simply doesn't understand that (yet).  Bernie Maddof was considered one of the greatest investment gurus in the country up until a few years ago.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
MOPEDE TIME!
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
The same tune just keeps playing over and over again... sidestep sidestep sidestep, avoid avoid avoid... sing it with me!


So you refuse to answer my question, you refuse to provide evidence to support your bold claim, and you continue to contradict yourself by saying gold and silver are the best stores of value but companies choose cash as their value store of choice because gold and silver are not the best stores of value.


Just to recap, the question is: why do major corporations not convert their cash stores into gold?  

This has nothing to do with investments in oil and steel, we're talking about CASH RESERVES AND VALUE STORE, not investments.  If gold and silver are THE BEST and MOST STABLE stores of value (which is exactly you claim) then it would be absolutely criminal for any responsible money manager to not take full advantage of them with every last penny of reserve cash.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007

Not really.  Mostly it means highly liquid investments, such as money markets.  That said, the 'cash' position of any particular corporation; or even all of them taken together, is only part of the equation.  You have to consider their debts as well.  Although most large corporations are net positive, they aren't by much.  They tend to own each others' debts via money markets, which are basicly mutual funds for corporate bonds.  This is very similar to how the banks all seem to owe each other money.  The idea that there is corporate cash sitting on the sidelines, or even private investor cash, waiting for the right moment to jump into the market is a sad myth.  That money doesn't, for the most part, actually exist.  And what doesn't exist can't be traded for gold.

Again you've sidestepped the quesiton.

No, I didn't.  You just didn't understand it.
As stated above, mostly because it doesn't really exist.  And for that which does exist, much of it is invested in bullion, either directly or indirectly via the 'paper' metal funds. 

Claim not evidenced.  Citation required.
I don't feel obliged to provide evidence to you.  You wouldn't accept anything I provided anyway.  You just want to see me expend time and effort in a futile effort.  If anyone besides yourself actually cared, I might consider it.  Otherwise, google is your friend.
With value levels at the top of the corporate food chain, it would be unprofessional for the CFO to invest all of the net 'cash' of the company in any single commodity, no matter how wise that particular investment might be.


Totally contradicts your statement that gold and silver are the ultimate stores of value.  If that claim was true, it would be criminal to NOT store all the company's excess cash in gold and silver.

I don't think you understand what is going on.  If gold were the ultimate store of value, it'd be worth something like $1700 per ounce!  Just because something is the best choice overall, (and historicly) doesn't mean that it's still the best choice for a particular person or corporation.  A company that has a lot of production inputs in oil or steel would be wise to invest reserves into those commodities, by either futures contracts, storage facilities or outright purchase of companies that produce those commodities.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103

Not really.  Mostly it means highly liquid investments, such as money markets.  That said, the 'cash' position of any particular corporation; or even all of them taken together, is only part of the equation.  You have to consider their debts as well.  Although most large corporations are net positive, they aren't by much.  They tend to own each others' debts via money markets, which are basicly mutual funds for corporate bonds.  This is very similar to how the banks all seem to owe each other money.  The idea that there is corporate cash sitting on the sidelines, or even private investor cash, waiting for the right moment to jump into the market is a sad myth.  That money doesn't, for the most part, actually exist.  And what doesn't exist can't be traded for gold.

Again you've sidestepped the quesiton.

WHY IS THE MONEY NOT KEPT IN GOLD?  If the money can be used to purchase commercial paper, it can be used to purchase gold.  WHY IS THE MONEY NOT IN GOLD?





As stated above, mostly because it doesn't really exist.  And for that which does exist, much of it is invested in bullion, either directly or indirectly via the 'paper' metal funds. 

Claim not evidenced.  Citation required.



With value levels at the top of the corporate food chain, it would be unprofessional for the CFO to invest all of the net 'cash' of the company in any single commodity, no matter how wise that particular investment might be.


Totally contradicts your statement that gold and silver are the ultimate stores of value.  If that claim was true, it would be criminal to NOT store all the company's excess cash in gold and silver.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
If the market always "decides" gold is great, why don't cell phone contracts, insurance policies, mortgages, employment agreements, car leases, etc. specify payment in gold?

Because of legal tender laws and Gresham's law.

You can write a contract and specify payment in gold but if the other party doesn't pay and you sue them, you're required to accept payment in legal tender. You can't say "but I wanted gold!" Likewise, since you are forced to take legal tender if you want protection from the courts, according to Gresham's law, people would rather save their gold and pass off their paper currency to you. All of this serves to reduce the amount of gold in circulation as money and we get to the state of affairs like today where very few people could even pay in gold without first buying some with paper. That makes it hugely inconvenient and businesses don't want to shrink their market share. Remove the legal tender laws and have courts honor gold contracts and then you can make an argument. As it stands, when there is a truly free market, without government threats, the market prefers gold. You claim to be big on evidence so let's not ignore thousands of years of history.

You may have to take legal tender, but you can link the amount of tender to the exchange rate with gold. A gold clause still lets you do that and it's been perfectly legal to enforce since 1977. See 216 Jamica Ave. LLC v. S&R Playhouse Realty Co.. Gresham's Law makes sense but it also contradicts the idea that the market will always choose gold. You just named some important reasons that market participants will continue to contract in fixed quantities of fiat currencies instead of gold-linked quantities, such as convenience and retaining market share, even though it is legal to specify payments in terms of gold.

If market participants prefer gold, it's even more puzzling that gold doesn't dominate savings. Right now Apple is sitting on more than $75 billion in cash. Microsoft has more than $50 billion and Google more than $35 billion. They don't appear to be in a hurry to spend it. There are many large companies with multiple billions in cash on hand. Why not convert it to gold if gold is stable and fiat currencies are unpredictable? They don't need to worry about any market share loss or customer inconvenience from what they do with their savings.

Maybe 10% of those reserves are actually in cash.  Maybe.


Then what are they kept in?  I guess you aren't familiar with accounting, but cash means cash.


Not really.  Mostly it means highly liquid investments, such as money markets.  That said, the 'cash' position of any particular corporation; or even all of them taken together, is only part of the equation.  You have to consider their debts as well.  Although most large corporations are net positive, they aren't by much.  They tend to own each others' debts via money markets, which are basicly mutual funds for corporate bonds.  This is very similar to how the banks all seem to owe each other money.  The idea that there is corporate cash sitting on the sidelines, or even private investor cash, waiting for the right moment to jump into the market is a sad myth.  That money doesn't, for the most part, actually exist.  And what doesn't exist can't be traded for gold.

Quote

Regardless, you've sidestepped the question.  If gold and silver are the ultimate mediums of stable value storage, when why aren't all these massive cash stores converted to gold and silver bullion?

As stated above, mostly because it doesn't really exist.  And for that which does exist, much of it is invested in bullion, either directly or indirectly via the 'paper' metal funds.  The thing about gold, is that it is as untraceable for corporate entities and very wealthy individuals as Bitcoin is for us.  There are estimates about how much refined "above ground" gold exists in the world, but the thing about that is that no one can really ever know with any certainty how much actually exists.  And if we can't know how much there is, we can't ever know who is trading the "shadow" supply on the margins.  Also, there are other highly liquid investments that can do as well or better than gold; such as oil futures, or ag futures.  With value levels at the top of the corporate food chain, it would be unprofessional for the CFO to invest all of the net 'cash' of the company in any single commodity, no matter how wise that particular investment might be.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250

Stuff like that is misleading.  There is FAR FAR more to the monetary control debate than "zomg the dollar is worth only a fraction of what it was!!!"  Charts like that designed to get an emotional reaction out of people that don't think.  Without even getting into details, just consider for a second that in 1900 people worked for pennies an hour.  So, yes, the dollar was worth more, but that's only a tiny part of the story.  You can't just look at relative value of a dollar and ignore all other factors.

I understand that it is a complex issue and that wages were lower in the 1900s than they are now, but the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar still means something.  I want to learn more about the complex issues and discuss them with people.  I'm willing to discuss them with you if you are interested. 

The best place to start is to ask yourself... lost purchasing power against what?  Who decided where to set the $1 baseline on that chart and what are they using to consider how value has fluctuated?  It seems like they've used gold (no surprise there).  Is a speculative metal like gold the best thing to use to determine relative purchasing power of the dollar?  Why not use eggs, milk, iron, corn, sheep, oil, etc.?

Absolutely.  But I haven't heard anyone argue that the US dollar has lost value versus things in general, are you saying it hasn't?  Here is how much a 1774 dollar was worth in 1913 based on multiple indicators (CPI, value of consumer bundle, nominal GDP per capita, etc.) and here is how much a 1913 dollar is worth in 2009.  Finally, here is how muach a 1971 dollar is worth in 2009.

So you would agree that the US dollar has lost value, right?

A loaf of bread cost $0.05 1930 and it costs $3.00 today, but is that the whole story?  $0.05 was a couple hours' wage back in 1930.  $3.00 is less than half of minimum hourly wage today.  So yea, you could purchase a nice car for $2,500 back in the day, but that was a year's salary for many people.  So were people really better off when the dollar's purchasing power was higher?  Obviously a good bit of that chart is exaggeration and hyperbole, because the average American wasn't exactly rolling in wealth when the dollar was at its supposed peak.


The dollar's purchasing power is entirely relative.  If real wages increase at the same rate the dollar declines in value, then the decline isn't really a big deal - stuff costs more, but everyone makes more. If real wages increase at a slower rate than the dollar declines (or decline themselves), then we've got issues.  Obviously that's only the tip of the iceberg (foreign trade really messes everything up), but it's a good place to start to decide whether the decline is of concern or not.

The problem with a decline in purchasing power is that it hurts people who are saving and discourages it.  Wages will adjust to inflation, but they don't adjust right away, so the middle and lower classes are hurt by this kind of monetary policy.

full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
If the market always "decides" gold is great, why don't cell phone contracts, insurance policies, mortgages, employment agreements, car leases, etc. specify payment in gold?

Because of legal tender laws and Gresham's law.

You can write a contract and specify payment in gold but if the other party doesn't pay and you sue them, you're required to accept payment in legal tender. You can't say "but I wanted gold!" Likewise, since you are forced to take legal tender if you want protection from the courts, according to Gresham's law, people would rather save their gold and pass off their paper currency to you. All of this serves to reduce the amount of gold in circulation as money and we get to the state of affairs like today where very few people could even pay in gold without first buying some with paper. That makes it hugely inconvenient and businesses don't want to shrink their market share. Remove the legal tender laws and have courts honor gold contracts and then you can make an argument. As it stands, when there is a truly free market, without government threats, the market prefers gold. You claim to be big on evidence so let's not ignore thousands of years of history.

You may have to take legal tender, but you can link the amount of tender to the exchange rate with gold. A gold clause still lets you do that and it's been perfectly legal to enforce since 1977. See 216 Jamica Ave. LLC v. S&R Playhouse Realty Co.. Gresham's Law makes sense but it also contradicts the idea that the market will always choose gold. You just named some important reasons that market participants will continue to contract in fixed quantities of fiat currencies instead of gold-linked quantities, such as convenience and retaining market share, even though it is legal to specify payments in terms of gold.

If market participants prefer gold, it's even more puzzling that gold doesn't dominate savings. Right now Apple is sitting on more than $75 billion in cash. Microsoft has more than $50 billion and Google more than $35 billion. They don't appear to be in a hurry to spend it. There are many large companies with multiple billions in cash on hand. Why not convert it to gold if gold is stable and fiat currencies are unpredictable? They don't need to worry about any market share loss or customer inconvenience from what they do with their savings.

Maybe 10% of those reserves are actually in cash.  Maybe.


Then what are they kept in?  I guess you aren't familiar with accounting, but cash means cash.

Quote
Cash

    ASSET account on a balance sheet representing paper currency and coins, negotiable money orders and checks, bank balances, and certain short-term government securities.




Regardless, you've sidestepped the question.  If gold and silver are the ultimate mediums of stable value storage, when why aren't all these massive cash stores converted to gold and silver bullion?
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007

I find it highly ironic that the crowd which blasts the dollar for being valued far in excess of its intrinsic worth is the same crowd that champions gold and silver, two metals (especially gold) that are valued grossly in excess of their intrinsic worth.  The industrial demand for gold take alone would place its price at only a fraction of a fraction of where it currently is, and the same goes for silver (which is why it's historically traded around the $5 mark, except when bandwagons form).

There is no such thing as 'intrinsic worth'.  All value is a subjective calculation.  Gold is worth what someone will trade for it.  The same thing is true about steel, mercury, salt or real estate.  

And fiat currencies, but that item is conveniently always left off the list.


A fair point.  I had assumed that this was an obvious fact, and that it didn't need to be pointed out.  Sorry for overestimating you once again.  I'll try to do better next time.

Quote

In fact, as ansible adams point out, fiat currencies seem to be the value store of choice for all major corporations and, quite frankly, nearly everyone else as well.  Why is that, given that you're claiming gold and silver are the most stable stores of value?


I challenge you to find a single US corporation or major investor that keeps more than 10% of their savings in cash.  They value it in cash, but very little of it is actually kept in cash.  There is an obvious reason for this.

Quote

And just FYI, when people refer to intrinsic value they're not talking about some magical, a priori worth; they're referring to the item's actually usefulness as a life-sustaining commodity.  Paper dollars can be used to start a fire, so that's some small amount of intrinsic value.  Gold can be used for... well not much of anything outside of advanced industry. 

As noted, I have to be careful with you, AyeYo.  I can't assume that you understand what this economic terms actually mean.  As for gold's 'use value', it makes for a hell of a ship ballast.  Good for bullets as well.  And silver has well known anti-bacterial properties, which are useful to everyone should the collapse of civilization destroy the monetary value of silver.  I challenge you to tell me what use a pint of mercury has to Mad Max.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
If the market always "decides" gold is great, why don't cell phone contracts, insurance policies, mortgages, employment agreements, car leases, etc. specify payment in gold?

Because of legal tender laws and Gresham's law.

You can write a contract and specify payment in gold but if the other party doesn't pay and you sue them, you're required to accept payment in legal tender. You can't say "but I wanted gold!" Likewise, since you are forced to take legal tender if you want protection from the courts, according to Gresham's law, people would rather save their gold and pass off their paper currency to you. All of this serves to reduce the amount of gold in circulation as money and we get to the state of affairs like today where very few people could even pay in gold without first buying some with paper. That makes it hugely inconvenient and businesses don't want to shrink their market share. Remove the legal tender laws and have courts honor gold contracts and then you can make an argument. As it stands, when there is a truly free market, without government threats, the market prefers gold. You claim to be big on evidence so let's not ignore thousands of years of history.

You may have to take legal tender, but you can link the amount of tender to the exchange rate with gold. A gold clause still lets you do that and it's been perfectly legal to enforce since 1977. See 216 Jamica Ave. LLC v. S&R Playhouse Realty Co.. Gresham's Law makes sense but it also contradicts the idea that the market will always choose gold. You just named some important reasons that market participants will continue to contract in fixed quantities of fiat currencies instead of gold-linked quantities, such as convenience and retaining market share, even though it is legal to specify payments in terms of gold.

If market participants prefer gold, it's even more puzzling that gold doesn't dominate savings. Right now Apple is sitting on more than $75 billion in cash. Microsoft has more than $50 billion and Google more than $35 billion. They don't appear to be in a hurry to spend it. There are many large companies with multiple billions in cash on hand. Why not convert it to gold if gold is stable and fiat currencies are unpredictable? They don't need to worry about any market share loss or customer inconvenience from what they do with their savings.

Maybe 10% of those reserves are actually in cash.  Maybe.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103

I find it highly ironic that the crowd which blasts the dollar for being valued far in excess of its intrinsic worth is the same crowd that champions gold and silver, two metals (especially gold) that are valued grossly in excess of their intrinsic worth.  The industrial demand for gold take alone would place its price at only a fraction of a fraction of where it currently is, and the same goes for silver (which is why it's historically traded around the $5 mark, except when bandwagons form).

There is no such thing as 'intrinsic worth'.  All value is a subjective calculation.  Gold is worth what someone will trade for it.  The same thing is true about steel, mercury, salt or real estate.  

And fiat currencies, but that item is conveniently always left off the list.

In fact, as ansible adams point out, fiat currencies seem to be the value store of choice for all major corporations and, quite frankly, nearly everyone else as well.  Why is that, given that you're claiming gold and silver are the most stable stores of value?




And just FYI, when people refer to intrinsic value they're not talking about some magical, a priori worth; they're referring to the item's actually usefulness as a life-sustaining commodity.  Paper dollars can be used to start a fire, so that's some small amount of intrinsic value.  Gold can be used for... well not much of anything outside of advanced industry. 
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 252
Elder Crypto God
You may have to take legal tender, but you can link the amount of tender to the exchange rate with gold.

That's a complete non sequitur. What does that have to do with anything?

Gresham's Law makes sense but it also contradicts the idea that the market will always choose gold.

I never said that the market "will always choose gold". Where do you come up with that? I said that, in a truly free market, the market prefers gold and by that, I mean gold backed currency. Give someone the option for paper backed by gold and paper backed by nothing and they'll choose the gold backed currency. That's historically speaking and this isn't a truly free market. When there is a truly free market again, the market could settle on palladium. I predict it won't, however.
Pages:
Jump to: