Currency backed by gold is an llusion

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Postby Zero_Sum » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:15 pm

While a gold peg currency is still obviously more valuable than one without it there is the acknowledgement that the world's global gold supply in terms of numbers is actually quite small where it will never be a viable currency for seven plus billion people worldwide in usage.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:23 pm

Carleas wrote:I think our disagreement here is largely semantic. I would say the word "tall" has an objective meaning, even if it isn't specific or uniform. If I point to two people standing side by side, and one is 5'8" and the other is 6'3", and I tell you that "the tall one is my brother", you know which one is my brother, there is no ambiguity. In the sense I am using the term "objective", that is evidence that the word "tall" has an objective meaning.

Yes, "tall" used in relativity is meaningful, but abstractly it doesn't carry much meaning. If there were only one object in the universe, could you say it is tall?

One revealing difference is in what conclusions we draw from the fact that price is based on "a pool of subjective opinions". Compare how you are describing price to how we might describe the rate of flow of a river, or the wind speed of a hurricane, or the rainfall during a storm. There are lots of difficulties in measuring these quantities, but it doesn't make them meaningless or illusory or subjective.

Well, just like each person values differently, each particle in a river or hurricane travels at different speeds. We could say the average speed is the speed of the wind or water, but it seems a misappropriation to describe it as objective since "average" is more unambiguous and "objective" can be reserved to describe other phenomenon.

I think, in the truest sense, or in essence, an objective situation has no observer because any observer will only be able to observe subjectively. Therefore it seems these words are interchangeable with "relative" and "abstract". So subjective value would be value assigned to the object relative to the subject whereas objective value would assign value abstractly regardless if subjects exist (no observer). Of course, that doesn't make much sense, but objectivity rarely does. When asked to take an objective view, we must use a lens of subjective rules for what objectivity means, which most often means "logical" without emotion, so "objective view" = logical view", but it isn't really objective. Or perhaps I may want someone to take an objective view of my life and even though all I can get is a subjective opinion, it's more objective than my own introspection. I think it's easy to conflate several different meanings and perhaps there could be degrees of objectivity in light of that.

But note also that price isn't just a pool of subjective opinions, but a network of subjective opinions. The price that an individual is willing to pay for something is influenced by the price that others are willing to pay for it, because what others are willing to pay changes the expected return. I might value gold jewelry at zero in terms of using it for myself (and I do), but because other people value gold jewelry, I would be willing to pay hundreds a piece of gold jewelry that I intend to turn around and sell for thousands.

Even if a subject consults the network for influence, it's still a subjective interpretation on whether or how to interpret what the network values. I can see your point though and it does seem like value is dictated without us having much say in it.

I don't disagree that a gold value peg is objective, or even that it's objective in a different way from a floating valuation, but I don't think that means that the floating valuation isn't "objective". Maybe I'm being sloppy here, and it's better to treat intersubjective facts as neither subjective nor objective, but I do think they act more like objective facts that subjective facts.

You could be right and it may boil down to how we define the words.
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm


Return to Society, Government, and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users