Redefinitions From The Left

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

@GCF
Hoodwinks and momentum is how exchange value works.

No token for exchange value is an 'asset,' if by asset you mean something with actual use value. I understand that you think gold would 'make paper valuable,' but what, exactly, is it that makes the gold valuable? Only that it has been traditionally used for trade. It is a mere token of exchange.

Gold isn't an 'asset,' never was. Gold could be exchanged for labor/soldiers, weapons, or land, which are assets, but only because lords and villeins alike agreed to use it for trade, and had faith in its future value for trade. Same as it ever was, and same as USD today.

The problem is that you are viewing currency as a resource, which it isn't. It is more like a unit of measurement.

[SuburbanFarmer]

@GCF
Hoodwinks and momentum is how exchange value works.

No token for exchange value is an 'asset,' if by asset you mean something with actual use value. I understand that you think gold would 'make paper valuable,' but what, exactly, is it that makes the gold valuable? Only that it has been traditionally used for trade. It is a mere token of exchange.

Gold isn't an 'asset,' never was. Gold could be exchanged for labor/soldiers, weapons, or land, which are assets, but only because lords and villeins alike agreed to use it for trade, and had faith in its future value for trade. Same as it ever was, and same as USD today.

The problem is that you are viewing currency as a resource, which it isn't. It is more like a unit of measurement.

Cash is a unit of measurement that is constantly shrinking every minute via inflation.

Take a universally exchangeable good, with about 6,000 years of history behind it, vs.... painted wood pulp, spun up daily by a banking cabal for the last 50 years, regularly losing value every day. I'd rather have the land, obviously, but my money's on the gold vs. dollar as a keeper of value.

This is why "saving money" no longer makes sense whatsoever. It's like building a sandcastle, and hoping that you'll come back to at least a lump of sand the next day. If you want to "save money", you buy permanent assets. You should have no use for dollars, other than immediate spending.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

50 years that saw actual wealth increase more drastically for more people than almost all 6000 prior years combined.

It is annoying that cash is always decreasing in value, and that interest rates gave bottomed out, but if you aren't risk averse, play them markets. If you are risk averse, take the small hit, and continue to have a higher quality of life than a Medieval lord with a shitload of gold.

To suggest that our economy is less robust than Medieval Europe is, prima facie, absurd.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Also, if you are going to invest your savings, you can get better returns than precious metals, and if the shit really hits the fan, and I mean really, the evaporation of your assets will be better for you than having to lug around a bunch of rocks no body wants. And if anybody does want them, Christ on his cross, you will be safer without them.

[SuburbanFarmer]

50 years that saw actual wealth increase more drastically for more people than almost all 6000 prior years combined.

It is annoying that cash is always decreasing in value, and that interest rates gave bottomed out, but if you aren't risk averse, play them markets.

First time I've heard someone describe losing 80% of their money value in a century as "annoying"...

If you are risk averse, take the small hit, and continue to have a higher quality of life than a Medieval lord with a shitload of gold.

2% compounding interest for simply holding cash is not a 'small hit'.. It's devastating over the long term. If I converted a portion of cash right now to gold, it would hold 100% of its value (assuming that I could get the actual spot rate) over the next century, while keeping the cash would lose me 80% of the value. Gold is (effectively) increasing in value by the inflation rate every year.

To suggest that our economy is less robust than Medieval Europe is, prima facie, absurd.

Not a suggestion that I made.

Also, if you are going to invest your savings, you can get better returns than precious metals, and if the shit really hits the fan, and I mean really, the evaporation of your assets will be better for you than having to lug around a bunch of rocks no body wants.

Based on the past decade, sure. Hell, I'll give you the last 50-100 years (though not by much). But that is NOT a permanent state of affairs, and, in my opinion, due to end within the next 1-2 years.

And if anybody does want them, Christ on his cross, you will be safer without them.

Safer to starve and beg than attempting to protect your assets? That's a unique viewpoint, for sure...
This money is too dangerous for you to keep. You'd be better off giving it away...

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You are not going to be able to protect your assets if the shit hits the fan. I am sorry, but that is a fantasy. Being agile, resourceful, and morally flexible are the only assets that matter in that scenario.

If someone is holding onto savings for a century, well, they probably deserve what they get. Of course, trying to predict what single commodity investment will pay off the best over a century is about as fiscally responsible as blowing your money at the dog track, but, by all means, buy gold.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You are not going to be able to protect your assets if the shit hits the fan. I am sorry, but that is a fantasy. Being agile, resourceful, and morally flexible are the only assets that matter in that scenario.

If someone is holding onto savings for a century, well, they probably deserve what they get. Of course, trying to predict what single commodity investment will pay off the best over a century is about as fiscally responsible as blowing your money at the dog track, but, by all means, buy gold.

What, exactly, does one “deserve” for trying to preserve their wealth?
Considering that every boomer on the planet is hammering the importance of “savings”, are they all wrong? Should’ve spent it while you had it sucker?

Or are they all manipulating the general public to store their depreciating money, so that the “trash it” economy can keep afloat? I mean, it’s not the worst conspiracy theory I’ve heard.

[StCapps]

Also, if you are going to invest your savings, you can get better returns than precious metals, and if the shit really hits the fan, and I mean really, the evaporation of your assets will be better for you than having to lug around a bunch of rocks no body wants.

Based on the past decade, sure. Hell, I'll give you the last 50-100 years (though not by much). But that is NOT a permanent state of affairs, and, in my opinion, due to end within the next 1-2 years.

There is nothing to indicate that the USD is going to collapse in a few years, more sky is falling nonsense from the chicken little's of the forum.

The US isn't going to stop buying shit from the rest of the world in the near future, and no other country is close to surpassing them in this regard, and therefore the USD is going to remain the world reserve currency for some time to come, no matter how much you claim that this state of affairs can't go on forever, that doesn't mean it going to crash anytime soon.

[Martin Hash]

The whole preservation of wealth idea is what leads to aristocracies. Live your life, spend your money, trying to build a dynasty for your children is medieval bullshit.

[StCapps]

The whole preservation of wealth idea is what leads to aristocracies. Live your life, spend your money, trying to build a dynasty for your children is medieval bullshit.

A natural human inclinations that should be harnessed, it isn't going away any time soon, and undercutting the ability to pass wealth on to your children is going to lead to more problems than it solves, and people will break your stupid anti-inheritance law to get around it. Taking from the rich just decreases the incentive to get rich in the first place, that's not a good thing.

If you don't want to give your money to your children, that's on you, the state should not confiscate their inheritance just because you think they only way they got rich was by luck, there are far better ways to redistribute wealth than that idiotic suggestion.