Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A $20 dollar gold piece would buy a horse in 1900. Cash it in for paper dollars today, and it still buys a horse.
It never loses value, when compared to the dollar. It has always held a gain, over the paper dollar.
To lose money, gold would have to be less than .04¢ and ounce. Making the paper dollar worth more than the gold.
Melt down all your gold money and then sell the gold you are left with and you will have much more than the $20 gold piece since the price of gold today is over $1600 an ounce and there is only about half an ounce of gold in that gold piece. It would be worth about $800 as gold where it would be nothing as money.
Early adapters find value in being the first to own a new gizmo, rather than in the actual utility of of the device. Still, as a group they're statistical outliers.
There's relatively little value in purchasing an iPhone on opening day. As for statistical outliers, have you seen the lines on the release days?
Finding value in being the first to own anything has value, especially if it provides a strategical advantage over your competition. Deflation doesn't really enter the picture. Those who wait and let the competition eat their lunch just so they can save 10% more on a rising currency are statistical outliers.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,887,746 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw
It isn't "that same $20 gold piece" since the dollar related value you've assigned it greatly reduces it's mass, and thus its purchasing power.
Aren't you turning the equation around?
The value of that dollar was originally tied to the value of the gold.
Now you would say:
The value of that piece of gold is tied to the value of the dollar?
The dollar has no value in and of itself to anchor the gold.
The gold does have value in and of itself and always will.
The 'idea' of value associated with the dollar fluctuates thus metaphorically increasing or descreasing the 'size' of the dollar.
The size of the gold is static. It neither increases or decreases in size or weight as the 'idea' of value surrounding it fluctuates. I agree the value of gold may fluctuate in the sense of the amount of goods or services it will purchase, but it's literal size and weight will always remain constant and it will always have intrinsic value.
I'm looking a a 9 month old colt right now, for $800
It cost me $120 to get 4 shoes and have them put on.
Rubber shoes are $150
I admittedly know nothing about horses. According to sources here a decent horse costs about 2k. It really is irrelevant, I was responding to a poster who said you could buy livestock and horses with a $20 gold piece. Ya clearly can't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
