## 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.

### Currency backed by gold is an llusion

I've come to the realization that currency, in particular, American currency, is NOT somehow made valid when it is backed up by gold.
This whole notion of inflation and gold backing up American dollars is completely absurd and simply an elaborate hoax to entangle people into a
web of deception, where the plain truth of the matter is obscured from their vision.

The plain truth of the matter is that money, paper currency, such as a US dollar, is arbitrarily assigned value. It has no inherent value in of itself; it's just a piece of paper, really.

Imagine that you are stranded on an island with a group of 20 people. There is no organized government, just people looking to work together to survive. In time, they decide to create a form of currency, so when certain jobs that must be done, which are not the most agreeable, the people who work the jobs get paid or rewarded for the hard work they do.

The established currency on the island is based off shavings from palm tree bark. Each shaving has a specific numerical value akin to US dollars, e.g., 1$, 5$, 10$The palm tree shaving currency is not backed up by gold in order to give it legitimacy or validity. It simply has value because a group of people agree together that it has relative value based upon their consensus. My point is that the whole American system of economic inflation, debt, and gold backing up American dollars is absurd and probably some sinister plot to deceive the masses of people from protesting against a malevolent government that seeks to exploit the people. Erik_ Philosopher Posts: 2379 Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm Location: Kingdom ### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion The idea behind gold, is it's hard to come by, where as paper or electronic money isn't, which means government and banks won't be able to fund their socialistic projects or make themselves richer while inflating prices, at least not easily. It's suppose to be a kind of natural, physical check on how big banks and government can get. However, since I'm a socialist, I want government to grow bigger, I just don't want it to have to borrow money from central banks in order to do so, it should be able to print its own money debt free, but of course the people who own the central banks and thus our government and economy, don't want that. Banking should genuinely be nationalized, instead of having crypto-private banks in control of our government like we do now. Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:03 pm, edited 3 times in total. Gloominary Philosopher Posts: 1372 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Dislocated ### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion As for the value of gold: https://youtu.be/hW2XtG7hxF0 He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 iambiguous ILP Legend Posts: 29690 Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm Location: baltimore maryland ### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion Gloom, Why do you want more government? Wouldn't a more efficient, less corrupt, smaller government allow more money to reach the folks who could benefit from it better? Maybe your answer could be another thread. I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL! I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy. Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat. WendyDarling Heroine Posts: 7131 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion Another problem with gold, is the lower classes have little-none, so if only money backed by gold was assigned value, the lower classes would go from having little money to having none overnight. Some people say this whole libertarian, gold thing is another swindle, and I'm inclined to agree with them. Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:15 pm, edited 2 times in total. Gloominary Philosopher Posts: 1372 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Dislocated ### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion WendyDarling wrote:Gloom, Why do you want more government? Wouldn't a more efficient, less corrupt, smaller government allow more money to reach the folks who could benefit from it better? Maybe your answer could be another thread. Good question, I might answer it in another thread. Gloominary Philosopher Posts: 1372 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Dislocated ### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion Erik_ wrote:The plain truth of the matter is that money, paper currency, such as a US dollar, is arbitrarily assigned value. This isn't quite right. No individual, or group of individuals, assigns the value of the dollar. The dollar gets its value based on supply and demand. Demand is guaranteed because the federal government only accepts payment of taxes in dollars, and because people are required to accept it in payment of debts. The supply is a little murkier, but is some function of at least the creation of new dollars by the central bank, by the level of reserve banks are required to hold, by US creditworthiness (since sovereign debt is paid in dollars). So printing new money doesn't completely determine the value of the dollar, nor does bank lending, nor does a US default on debt. The value, then, is determined by a loose consensus of everyone who exchanges goods and services in dollars. In fact, nothing has an inherent worth. If a service provider lowers her prices by 10%, is it because the value of that service has gone down, or because the value of the dollar has gone up, or perhaps because transaction costs have decreased? It's all three. Everything is valued in relation to other things, and in relation to the aggregate desires of the people in the marketplace. So long as people believe that other people will accept dollars in payment for goods and services, dollars will continue to have value. While it's true that dollars have no inherent worth (e.g. your desert island example), the fact that other people value them makes their value objective: we can determine how much gold a dollar is worth by attempting to trade dollars for gold. The quantity of dollars that can be exchanged for an ounce of gold is an objective fact about the world in the place and time at which the transaction occurs. User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No. Carleas Magister Ludi Posts: 5757 Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm Location: Washington DC, USA ### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion Having fiat currency backed by nothing is what allows banks to inflate the currency beyond reason, to expand the money supply beyond actual value production in the economy. Compare the value (relative spending power) of$1 today with its value 50 years ago.

Gold is inherently valuable, because people will always have use for it. Precious metals are like that. Gold is rare but not too rare, and incredibly useful. Also it’s pretty to look at. Therefore it serves a nice function for monetary backing.

Just because gold is backing currency doesn’t mean poor people who don’t own gold can’t have any currency.

I’m not really opposed to fiat currency without precious metals backing, philosophically speaking, but in a practical sense I am, because obviously this is a power too great for the idiots who happen to be in charge to handle. It’s like having your own credit card that has no spending limit and you can create money for it out of thin air and use that money to “pay it off”, quite absurd. People are too stupid to manage that sort of value-power intelligibly, it seems.

Money is nothing more than symbolic representation of real value created. If you start making more money than actual value being created then you reduce the relative value of your money, and misrepresent your economy to itself. That is stupid. But it’s what leftists do, they always want to follow this stupid Keynesian approach like some poor retard maxing out the credit card cause “like I’ll worry ‘bout it later yo! Duh”.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

UrGod wrote:Having fiat currency backed by nothing is what allows banks to inflate the currency beyond reason, to expand the money supply beyond actual value production in the economy.

A gold backed currency could still inflate if banks are allowed to lend more of the currency than they hold, as is the case with fiat currency. If a bank only needs a 10% reserve, they can effectively increase the amount in circulation 10-fold, whether or not the currency is backed by a commodity.

UrGod wrote:Gold is inherently valuable, because people will always have use for it. Precious metals are like that. Gold is rare but not too rare, and incredibly useful. Also it’s pretty to look at. Therefore it serves a nice function for monetary backing.

None of these is tantamount to "inherent" value. If some alternative material is found to be better suited to the things we use gold for, if a large gold deposit is discovered, or if gold falls out of favor, the value of gold would be significantly impacted. At various times, silver and even aluminum were considered more valuable than gold. That changed when significant silver deposits were found in Argentina, and when new processes for purifying aluminum were created.

So the value is not inherent, it's determined by the market. Different people value gold differently, and the market value fluctuates over time. Gold is just another commodity.

UrGod wrote:Money is nothing more than symbolic representation of real value created. If you start making more money than actual value being created then you reduce the relative value of your money, and misrepresent your economy to itself.

Creating new money is effectively a form of taxation. The total pool of value remains constant; in creating new money the existing money is devalued and the new money assumes that value but puts control in the hands of whoever is printing the money (the government for fiat, miners for cryptocurrencies, etc.). It's certainly a misrepresentation to think that in printing money you are creating new value, but inflation is not inherently a misrepresentation.

UrGod wrote:That is stupid. But it’s what leftists do...

Note that it was famed leftist Richard Nixon who took the US off the gold standard...
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Carleas wrote:
UrGod wrote:Having fiat currency backed by nothing is what allows banks to inflate the currency beyond reason, to expand the money supply beyond actual value production in the economy.

A gold backed currency could still inflate if banks are allowed to lend more of the currency than they hold, as is the case with fiat currency. If a bank only needs a 10% reserve, they can effectively increase the amount in circulation 10-fold, whether or not the currency is backed by a commodity.

I never said they couldn't do that. You want a small amount of inflation as a predictor/attractor point for present value being created in the economy but which is not quite measurable yet as GDP or whatever (you do not want the monetary supply to lag behind growth in real value creation). And beyond that you might even say that the monetary supply can still be increased a little bit for certain purposes, i.e. borrowing as debt from the future of the economy itself. But the sort of inflation we have had in the US since the gold standard was dropped is......literally insane. And not at all sustainable. Hence 21 trillion in debt, hence severely curtailed buying power of the consumer, hence the massive shrinking of the middle class.

UrGod wrote:Gold is inherently valuable, because people will always have use for it. Precious metals are like that. Gold is rare but not too rare, and incredibly useful. Also it’s pretty to look at. Therefore it serves a nice function for monetary backing.

None of these is tantamount to "inherent" value. If some alternative material is found to be better suited to the things we use gold for, if a large gold deposit is discovered, or if gold falls out of favor, the value of gold would be significantly impacted.

Inherent value does not mean "always has a high value". It means that it always has some value.

At various times, silver and even aluminum were considered more valuable than gold. That changed when significant silver deposits were found in Argentina, and when new processes for purifying aluminum were created.

So the value is not inherent, it's determined by the market. Different people value gold differently, and the market value fluctuates over time. Gold is just another commodity.

You are conflating two things here, the idea of inherency of value and the idea of fixed, absolute or absolutely 'high' value. I never said anything about gold not having relative market value. I said it is always inherently valuable, along with other precious metals. And that is true. Not sure why you are arguing the point, since based on your above statements you are not disagreeing with what I actually said.

UrGod wrote:Money is nothing more than symbolic representation of real value created. If you start making more money than actual value being created then you reduce the relative value of your money, and misrepresent your economy to itself.

Creating new money is effectively a form of taxation. The total pool of value remains constant; in creating new money the existing money is devalued and the new money assumes that value but puts control in the hands of whoever is printing the money (the government for fiat, miners for cryptocurrencies, etc.). It's certainly a misrepresentation to think that in printing money you are creating new value, but inflation is not inherently a misrepresentation.

Point taken. But massive inflation, which I am talking about, is indeed a misrepresentation. Just like if you were to take out five credit cards, now you can spend a lot more money than you actually have, that is a misrepresentation; similarly, when you give people a lot more money because you are flooding the economy with it (subprime loans, for example), this creates the illusion that there exists in the economy more value than there actually does exist. Just because inflation of the monetary supply readjusts the relative value of the individual currency notes in circulation does not belie this fact.

UrGod wrote:That is stupid. But it’s what leftists do...

Note that it was famed leftist Richard Nixon who took the US off the gold standard...

FDR did it first, 40 some years earlier.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

UrGod wrote:And beyond that you might even say that the monetary supply can still be increased a little bit for certain purposes, i.e. borrowing as debt from the future of the economy itself. But the sort of inflation we have had in the US since the gold standard was dropped is......literally insane. And not at all sustainable. Hence 21 trillion in debt, hence severely curtailed buying power of the consumer, hence the massive shrinking of the middle class.

I'm a little less sure about this, but I don't think a gold standard would prevent this level of inflation. The government can still borrow money when there's a gold standard, by e.g. selling treasury bonds.

I think you are right that the gold standard prevents runaway inflation, by eliminating the possibility that the government will just print money to cover its debts, though it would need to be both a fixed gold peg and a minimum reserve.

UrGod wrote:Not sure why you are arguing the point, since based on your above statements you are not disagreeing with what I actually said.

My mistake, I think I understand your claim now and agree that my points don't contradict it.

In that case, I would say instead that gold isn't special in having inherent value. Rice, lead, and sand have inherent value. Gold is just another commodity. It has properties that made it a useful store of value, but it isn't inherently more stable than any other metal, or really any physically stable material. Why not back a currency with silicon?

UrGod wrote:Just like if you were to take out five credit cards, now you can spend a lot more money than you actually have, that is a misrepresentation

This is an interesting example. If you take out five credit cards, in theory that fact is reported to the credit reporting agencies, and so each card will be issued with a credit limit proportional to your creditworthiness given that you already have four other credit cards. For the average consumer, I think it's fair to call it a misrepresentation, but to a sophisticated market player, the local inflation of your spending power is understood to decrease your credit worthiness. I think this is also true of an economy printing too much money. Debtors would be miffed if the government printed money to pay off its debts, because that would mean paying a fixed sum with a currency of decreasing value, causing the value of government debt to decrease and making it harder for the government to borrow.

UrGod wrote:FDR did it first, 40 some years earlier.

Guess it's a leftist and a rightist thing then.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Technically all currency runs on the illusion of confidence through value. It's all a con-fidence game.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast

Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

What do you mean by the "illusion of confidence"? Confidence plays a role, in that people accept cash because they are confident that they will be able to find others who will accept it in the future. They invest because they are confident that they will see returns from their investment. Is that the confidence you're referring to? What's illusory about it?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

He acts as if real value created in the real world is just an illusion, because we happen to enable its exchange via fiat money or any kind of currency. Such a claim is a non starter.

Your two options are barter or money. Money is obviously superior. And money is awesome, is a neutral tool like a gun: you can use it for good or ill. Thus it merely exemplifies one’s own values.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Which is exactly why these people oppose it. They don’t like having to face themselves, or take responsibility for their own lives and actions.

That’s all money is, and that’s all guns are too; taking responsibility, facing yourself.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Carleas wrote:What do you mean by the "illusion of confidence"? Confidence plays a role, in that people accept cash because they are confident that they will be able to find others who will accept it in the future. They invest because they are confident that they will see returns from their investment. Is that the confidence you're referring to? What's illusory about it?

I guess what I am trying to say is the value of currency is all illusory or artificially contrived in that by itself only it has no real intrinsic value where only confidence (faith) in currency creates its applied valuation in practice. This is why more than anything economics is a measure and metric of social confidence or discontent depending on what is more prevalent.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast

Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

UrGod wrote:He acts as if real value created in the real world is just an illusion, because we happen to enable its exchange via fiat money or any kind of currency. Such a claim is a non starter.

Your two options are barter or money. Money is obviously superior. And money is awesome, is a neutral tool like a gun: you can use it for good or ill. Thus it merely exemplifies one’s own values.

No, I'm just saying all value is artificially contrived. I'm not saying it is meaningless or worthless. I'm not saying is useless either.

Basically I'm saying a lot of what we value is a sort of self reflective and referential mirage that we surround ourselves with.
Last edited by Zero_Sum on Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast

Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

UrGod wrote:Which is exactly why these people oppose it. They don’t like having to face themselves, or take responsibility for their own lives and actions.

That’s all money is, and that’s all guns are too; taking responsibility, facing yourself.

Actually if we study the sociological underpinnings of currency or money itself it is about social control.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast

Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Erik_ wrote:This whole notion of inflation and gold backing up American dollars is completely absurd and simply an elaborate hoax to entangle people into a web of deception, where the plain truth of the matter is obscured from their vision.

You nailed it!

The idea is to encourage folks to argue for a gold standard OR a central bank because either way those with the gold will be in charge. The last thing they want is for a country to issue its own money, interest free, like Lincoln's Greenbacks or the Colonist's Colonial Scrip because it removes control of the money supply from the banksters.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Carleas wrote:What do you mean by the "illusion of confidence"? What's illusory about it?

UrGod wrote:He acts as if real value created in the real world is just an illusion, because we happen to enable its exchange via fiat money or any kind of currency. Such a claim is a non starter.

"One man's trash is another man's treasure."

All value is subjective and therefore an illusion. Gold is not intrinsically valuable and is therefore just as fiat ("authoritative sanction," from Latin fiat "let it be done") as paper money or tally sticks. You cannot eat gold or use it as an energy source, so it's just another medium of exchange that is worth only what someone will give you for it... and you need *faith* that someone will give you something for it in order for it to have any value whatsoever.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Serendipper wrote:All value is subjective and therefore an illusion.

I think this sums up the disconnect. Value is intersubjective, it's based on a widespread social agreement, and the intersubjective facts are empirically demonstrable. You demonstrate the objective value of money every time you exchange it for goods and services, or exchange your labor or its fruits for cash. As such, it's value is an objective fact about the world.

The fact that its value may change over time, and may differ from place to place, doesn't make it subjective. Even the fact that one individual may choose to reject all money or to value it differently does not make its value subjective, any more than one person refusing to use a specific word or using a word idiosyncratically deprives that word of its usual meaning.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Carleas wrote:
Serendipper wrote:All value is subjective and therefore an illusion.

I think this sums up the disconnect. Value is intersubjective, it's based on a widespread social agreement, and the intersubjective facts are empirically demonstrable. You demonstrate the objective value of money every time you exchange it for goods and services, or exchange your labor or its fruits for cash. As such, it's value is an objective fact about the world.

If the orderbook for a stock has several bids to buy at a range of prices, then what is the value of the stock? One guy says he will buy 100 shares @ $10, but another guy says he will sell 100 shares at$11. What is the value? It isn't the "last" price because that's history and is nothing more than a coincidence of subjective valuing.

Value is determined and issued by individuals and not a collective agreement or consensus among them as if buyers and sellers got together to set the price.

The fact that its value may change over time, and may differ from place to place, doesn't make it subjective.

That's right, but the fact that value changes from person to person does.

Even the fact that one individual may choose to reject all money or to value it differently does not make its value subjective, any more than one person refusing to use a specific word or using a word idiosyncratically deprives that word of its usual meaning.

Sure if a large group of people subjectively value something similarly, then you'll have a large pool to trade with at a *seeming* objective value, but that value could suddenly change on the whim of some central banker who chooses the wrong language.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Serendipper wrote:One guy says he will buy 100 shares @ $10, but another guy says he will sell 100 shares at$11.

If I would call a person who is 6"2', "tall", but you think that someone isn't "tall" until they are at least 6'3", is "tall" meaningless?

Serendipper wrote:Value is determined and issued by individuals and not a collective agreement or consensus among them as if buyers and sellers got together to set the price.

It is both. If I have access to a large number of buyers, then the consensus price of a stock matters greatly: it will affect both the price I can sell it for, and the price others are willing to buy it for. I can sell it to the person who is willing to pay me the most, and that person's bid will be based in part on the information that others will pay a similar price.

It's true that each transaction is between two individuals, but then we are just two individuals talking and using words that are defined by the consensus of a speaker population. The individuals in a market make their decisions in the context of consensus around a price, it's incomplete to look at that transaction as just concerning the two individuals involved and their purely subjective preferences.

Serendipper wrote:Sure if a large group of people subjectively value something similarly, then you'll have a large pool to trade with at a *seeming* objective value, but that value could suddenly change on the whim of some central banker who chooses the wrong language.

But this is true of everything, every concept is subject to sudden changes of meaning on the basis of new information. If we discovered that apples were poisonous, the concept of 'apple' would change immediately. When we found out that 'jade' was really two different materials, the concept changed immediately. A piece of clothing that was ugly can become attractive and hip if Kim Kardashian (or whoever, I'm not up on who's hip) suggests it's the next big thing. A white and gold dress can become blue and black by providing more information about the lighting at the time it was photographed.

Name me an attribute of anything, I'm reasonably confident I can come up with a plausible way in which that attribute could be changed in concept by the introduction of new information. And if that's so, then this criticism doesn't undermine the objective truth of the value of money unless it undermines all objective truth.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

Carleas wrote:
Serendipper wrote:One guy says he will buy 100 shares @ $10, but another guy says he will sell 100 shares at$11.

If I would call a person who is 6"2', "tall", but you think that someone isn't "tall" until they are at least 6'3", is "tall" meaningless?

If you say someone is tall, I can never know what you mean, so it's objectively meaningless.

Serendipper wrote:Value is determined and issued by individuals and not a collective agreement or consensus among them as if buyers and sellers got together to set the price.

It is both. If I have access to a large number of buyers, then the consensus price of a stock matters greatly:

There is no consensus price. If I want to sell stock, I don't ask what everyone else thinks of the idea, but even if I did, that still would be my subjective view that popularity determines value since someone else may not value it with the same method. If many participants value it the same, then it is a co-incidence of subjective valuing. Objective valuing would be more like price dictation by the state so the value would not depend on subjective opinion. For instance when gold was set at $35 by law, then everyone valued gold at$35 and what the dollar was worth was subjective.

it will affect both the price I can sell it for, and the price others are willing to buy it for. I can sell it to the person who is willing to pay me the most, and that person's bid will be based in part on the information that others will pay a similar price.

Even when buyers bid prices up in competition, they still have a maximum price they are willing to pay. If I value a house at $100k, I can't pay over that amount. If I get excited by the bidding process and up my bid, then I've changed my subjective value of the house depending on what someone else is willing to pay based on his subjective valuing of what others are willing to pay, but it's not a consensus since many are priced out of the market and their valuing is now inconsequential. If I buy the house, I am the one who solely determined its value with my subjective assessment of things, which may have been misplaced by the excitement of the bidding process itself. It's true that each transaction is between two individuals, but then we are just two individuals talking and using words that are defined by the consensus of a speaker population. The individuals in a market make their decisions in the context of consensus around a price, it's incomplete to look at that transaction as just concerning the two individuals involved and their purely subjective preferences. Notice how you said "consensus around a price" and not "of a price". So the consensus price is fuzzy and not so certain because it's a pool of subjective opinions. Serendipper wrote:Sure if a large group of people subjectively value something similarly, then you'll have a large pool to trade with at a *seeming* objective value, but that value could suddenly change on the whim of some central banker who chooses the wrong language. But this is true of everything, every concept is subject to sudden changes of meaning on the basis of new information. If we discovered that apples were poisonous, the concept of 'apple' would change immediately. When we found out that 'jade' was really two different materials, the concept changed immediately. A piece of clothing that was ugly can become attractive and hip if Kim Kardashian (or whoever, I'm not up on who's hip) suggests it's the next big thing. A white and gold dress can become blue and black by providing more information about the lighting at the time it was photographed. Name me an attribute of anything, I'm reasonably confident I can come up with a plausible way in which that attribute could be changed in concept by the introduction of new information. And if that's so, then this criticism doesn't undermine the objective truth of the value of money unless it undermines all objective truth. No, of course, suddenness doesn't mean anything. I was just describing how fragile subjective valuing is. When the gold price was$35, anybody could say just about anything and it wouldn't change the price (except announcing the repeal of the law).

Maybe another example is the objective valuing of BMI for what determines "obese". Or perhaps what BP determines "high blood pressure", which is somewhat subjective depending which country you ask, but objective concerning all doctors in the country since their opinions don't matter.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Currency backed by gold is an llusion

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.

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.

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.

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.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi

Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Next