|
|
|
|
|
by mwbajor
1017 days ago
|
|
I'm not an expert on this by any means but: Modern society needed something scarce and was hard to manufacture/process (thus ensuring price stability) to use as an intermediate currency between currencies. Those countries agreed to use gold as this intermediate currency. Other ideas have been to use groups of commodities but these incur more complexity since they're purpose is to be consumed in some process. So does this not give gold an intrinsic value? Economists regard it as a "shiny rock" but I think that is an oversimplification used to make opponents of fiat money look stupid. |
|
And now we have no intermediary and no one bothers with gold when going between USD and EUR or JPY and CAD. Gold is completely useless for such exchanges in 2023 and would just add overhead. So given that it is worse than useless (being an hinderance due to an extra step) in such transactions, how can it have "intrinsic" value? If you're travelling internationally, do you exchange your domestic currency for gold, cross the border, and then exchange the gold for the destination currency?
What exactly is gold useful for in 2023 besides jewelry and some minor industrial uses? Can you buy groceries? Pay property taxes? Can you show up at a car dealership with a brick or two and get a new ride?
What is the value of me having gold in my possession?
> Those countries agreed to use gold as this intermediate currency.
It was socially agreed to it having value, but if it had "intrinsic" value, (a) no such agreement would have been needed because it would have been self-evident (the Gold Standard was only formalized in 1870), and (b) it would still be valid today. When the agreement stopped the intermediary status also stopped, showing there was nothing "intrinsic" about it: it just happened to be a convenient convention (for a time).