Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Toddsterpatriot
No, an ounce of gold wouldn't be a sufficient amount upon which to base an entire monetary system. But of course, the world never has and never will be reduced to owning a single ounce of gold.

You see, money is a commodity, but it is fundamentally different from any other commodity: its essential purpose is as a medium of exchange and a store of value.

Throughout history, two commodities have been repeatedly selected by free people and free markets as vastly superior to any other commodities for these purposes: silver (for smaller puchases) and gold (for larger purchases.)

There are several fundamental characteristics that make a commodity a good choice as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Going from memory (my formal economics education was over 30 years ago), those characteristics are:

1. Homogeneity. One unit must be as close as possible to any other unit so that the each unit is of equal value and therefore interchangable.

2. Divisibility. It must be capable of being broken into pieces or parts to accommodate transactions of many sizes.

3. Transportability. This may be the same as No. 2 above.

4. Scarcity. The commodity must be so difficult to find or create that its aggregate numbers cannot easily be increased so as to decrease the "store of value" of that which has been set aside or "saved."

5. Relative lack of intrinsic value. It cannot have significant other uses which generate significant demand that could skew its value as a medium of exhcange and a store of value.

There are probably more hallmarks of a good currency, but that's all that I can recall at this time.

You can see why gold and silver would have emerged over and over and over again throughout history as the currency of choice of free men and free markets. The scarcity requirement is probably the most imporatnat, and the one which eliminates paper fiat money as an acceptable medium of exchange and a store of value.

BTW, I find your mocking and condescending tone especially combined with your ignorance to be most unbecoming.
122 posted on 08/23/2007 2:32:08 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]


To: Iwo Jima
No, an ounce of gold wouldn't be a sufficient amount upon which to base an entire monetary system.

So when you said:
However much gold there is, by definition it is "enough."

You were lying? Or just wrong?

126 posted on 08/23/2007 2:44:07 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Ignorance of the laws of economics is no excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson