[Sharlin]

> This has led to their horns currently being the most valuable false commodity in the black-market trade, with a higher value even than gold, platinum, diamonds and cocaine.

I’d say unorthodox measures to curb poaching and trade are not uncalled for.

[jstanley]

What does it mean for rhino horns to be worth more than gold? There are lots of ways to measure it.

All the world's rhino horns put together are worth more than all the world's gold put together? All of Africa's rhino horns are worth more than all of Africa's gold? A single rhino horn is worth more than a single bar of gold? 1kg of gold? The same mass of gold? The same volume of gold?

[JoshGG]

If you’re unfamiliar with how commodity gold is priced, it’s by weight. So this comparison is likely comparing price per unit of weight.

[jstanley]

Sure, but that's not a fundamental thing, it's just a unit that's convenient to trade.

It's like wondering whether gold is worth more than Microsoft by comparing an ounce of gold to a share of Microsoft. Or to an ounce of Microsoft share certificates!

The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap. And I seriously doubt that rhino horns are worth more than 15 trillion USD.

[ben_w]

> The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap

From the perspective of smugglers and their stuff, that's about the worst possible comparison.

So much so that yours is literally the first time ever that I've heard anyone even suggest market cap for a smuggled substance; looking at the definition of that term, I don't think that term is, or even could be by analogy, meaningful in this context.

It's always money per mass, £$€ per imperial or metric, never anything else.

[yreg]

> Sure, but that's not a fundamental thing, it's just a unit that's convenient to trade.

How is price per unit of mass not fundamental?

I refuse to believe that you are actually confused that one commodity costs more per gram than another one.

[gus_massa]

My guess is by weight. (It also may be by volume, that I guess is very important to transport illegal things, but it's too abstrtact. [1])

Comparison by weight is useful to give an idea of the price. It's just like measuring distances in football fields. Don't worry too much about that. Also, a cargo ship full of gold [2] is probably very valuable, but a magical cargo ship full of rhino horns will probably collapse the market and be worthless.

Here is a list of most expensive materials per weight https://brightside.me/articles/the-17-most-expensive-materia... it includes saffron and antimater that have a very short shelf life, a few radioactive things that are expensive only beacuse they are difficult to produce [3]. If I had to stock huge quantities, I'd be very conservative and store gold and platinium.

[1] Gold has a huge value per volume ratio. Toilete paper not.

[2] Assuming it doesn't sink.

[3] Aluminium used to be very expensive, until someone invented a method to make metalic aluminium easily.

[ryankrage77]

It would be atypical to trade a physical commodity for a share. This is the purpose of money.

[ryanjshaw]

You seem to be down voted by level 0 thinkers. No doubt they will down vote me now too.

You are completely correct. While the statement is factually correct regarding the cost of rhino horn, it is completely meaningless information.

We may as well throw in the cost per gram of a heart transplant while we're at it.

I will say that annual demand is probably the more meaningful figure to work with, and it would be even more useful to express that in terms of "how many more years of this level of demand will lead to the extinction of rhinos."

[usuehfjfi]

Yeah, not fundamental.

When you go to the store you compare bananas by the size of the company that produced them? Or by the price per kg?

[j16sdiz]

All of above.

~$400k/kg vs ~$75k/kg

[jstanley]

Well then it's not all of the above unless there's more than 375 million kilograms of rhino horns in the world, because all the gold is worth 15 trillion dollars.

Unless that's the case, which seems unlikely, all the gold is still worth more than all the rhino horns.

Also, gold's density is about 19 g/cm^3. I can't easily find a figure for rhino horns, but let's guess about the same as fingernails, horse's hooves, etc., which is about 1.25 g/cm^3. Gold is 15x denser, so at the prices you've shown, gold is still worth more than rhino horns per unit volume.

[usuehfjfi]

Price per volume is not used because volume changes with altitude. This is the reason planes measure fuel by weight. And scientists measure gases by weight.

Because weight is the best way to compare things.

[a_c_s]

"x is worth more than gold" means the price per unit of weight of x is greater than that of gold.

What are you trying to achieve by arguing that a common turn of phrase doesn't mean what everyone else thinks it means?