Replies

In the aggregate, both gold and reliable fiat money function as a store of value but their utility requires them being legal tender and broadly functional and accepted in the marketplace as a medium of exchange.

Gold is nicer to look at than paper currency but it is harder to carry and break down into smaller units. And just when did the country last endure a crisis that made gold preferable to paper currency in ordinary transactions? One could live a long time -- many lifetimes -- without ever needing gold for the sake of survival. And if things ever get that bad, guns, ammo, and food will be more sought after than gold.

My objection to Rand Paul's account is that it offers a niave rationale that seems to originate more in fundamentalist style teaching than an understanding of economics. Eventually, as with too much fundamentalist preaching, the mind may rebel in favor of more substantial fare.

"In the ~~aggregate~~ short term, both gold and reliable fiat money function as a store of value"

Forty eight years ago the first new car I bought cost me $2700. The last car I bought two years ago cost me $24,000. Priced in gold those cars would have cost me 7 ounces and 13 ounces. Seems like the "reliable" fiat currency didn't hold its value nearly as well as the gold.

"but their utility requires them being legal tender and broadly functional and accepted in the marketplace as a medium of exchange."

Gold is accepted everywhere and always has been. It has intrinsic value and requires no legal status. US dollars on the other hand have value only due to their legal status. Yes, there have been times and places where oppressive governments have outlawed the use of gold as a currency, but even then a man's business was still able to be transacted in gold.

"Gold is nicer to look at than paper currency but it is harder to carry and break down into smaller units."

Harder to carry? At $1800 per ounce one million dollars worth of gold weighs about 35 lbs. I think I could carry enough in my briefcase to transact any business I might happen to find myself involved in.

Harder to break down into smaller units? That's why we have silver coins. Sheesh.

"One could live a long time -- many lifetimes -- without ever needing gold for the sake of survival."

Could is the operative word. Shit does happen and predicting the future over a lifetime is a fools game. Though one thing is easy to predict and that is that a fiat currency will lose some of its value every year.

"And if things ever get that bad, guns, ammo, and food will be more sought after than gold."

Which has nothing to do with the discussion. If you can envision a time when gold has no value (which has never happened) do you really think a fiat currency will have value?

"Eventually, as with too much fundamentalist preaching, the mind may rebel in favor of more substantial fare."

More substantial fare? You've told me that wealth can't be created "de novo" by issuing currency and you've told me that after a reliable currency is issued it can serve as a store of value. If a stored value isn't wealth, what is it?

I think your more substantial fare might be able to learn a thing or two from Rand.