HAVING PROBLEMS VIEWING THE SITE? GET FIREFOX! | A NOTE ON ADVERTISING

   

On Gold and the Origin of Money

In my 2006 paper, An Answer to Stephen Zarlenga, www.axiomaticeconomics.co..., I discuss the origin of money. There are several important points that this paper makes which are contrary to Ron Paul’s belief that gold has intrinsic value:

1) Gold never had any more use value than paper. It is a soft metal and is easy to stamp, which makes it useful in the same way that paper’s ability to absorb ink makes it useful. “It is back to this use, the minting of cow-tokens, that Mises’ regression theorem traces the value of gold, not to the making of pretty necklaces.”

2) There was never a 100% reserve requirement; the monetary system was always fiduciary. “Before paper receipts for gold coins were issued, the gold coins were themselves receipts for cows and, like banknotes and then checking accounts, it is probably true that more coins were issued than there were actual cows in the herd.”

3) No monetary system has ever been based on trust. “The townsfolk do not accept a money substitute (coins in antiquity, checks in 1844) because the issuer ‘vied for their acceptance’ as Kindleberger (1996, p. 62) claims. They accept it because the issuer is alive, which is taken as evidence that he has survived the latest clearing house meeting.”

4) Last but not least, “the one point that Zarlenga misses is the keystone, without which his whole thesis collapses: Cow-tokens were issued by the people who owned the cows. The church elders did not just write the equation ‘130 grains of gold = one cow’ on the bulletin board at their temple and expect people to obey it. How could that work?”

To read where Ron Paul expresses the opinion that gold has intrinsic value, visit www.lewrockwell.com/paul/...

output

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Box..you opened it...we came...

We have such sights to show you....
You summoned me but I have no time for lilliputian squabbling about the origin of money and the claims that gold is a worthless piece of metal. Do not invoke my judgment to such drivel again.

A few good reasons why gold has been money for 5,000 yrs+

From my Oct 2007 column, "Money"
http://www.strike-the-roo...

Money itself can be almost anything, including feathers or sea shells. Still, as you'd expect, some things work better as money than do others. Well-chosen forms of money hold their value over time; they resist rust and fire and rot and other forms of physical destruction; they do not melt when wet or otherwise change easily into something of lesser value. It helps if the material used as money has intrinsic value of its own, as do gold and silver – both of which are useful in jewelry, industry, medicine, and in increasing numbers of high-tech products and processes.

Well-chosen forms of money are also relatively scarce and their supplies cannot be easily increased without significant cost or effort. If a supply of money CAN be increased without much cost or effort, that money will be counterfeited by either the state or by other groups or individuals – and each new money unit brought into circulation reduces the value of all existing units. Artificially double the number of dollars in circulation and you have twice the dollars chasing the same number of houses, cars, carrots, accountants, and so on. Goods and services do not magically increase in availability just because the number of dollars has increased, and the market quickly and unavoidably adjusts to the new situation with a general rise in prices. Prices are raised until demand diminishes to what the market can handle.

Because an increase in dollars (or other monetary units) for one individual represents immediate, increased prosperity for that person, this general inflation of the money supply is easily misunderstood, especially at the start of an inflationary period. "More money – whoopee!"

It is only later in the inflationary cycle that the upbeat (and false) sense of prosperity turns to unease, and then to fear, and then – if the cycle is allowed to go far enough – into outright terror.

Let's make a deal:

You write a review of my new paper, Gold Does Not Have Intrinsic Value, www.axiomaticeconomics.co..., for Strike the Root and I'll write a review of your article, Money, and post it on my website.

Deal?

In the meantime, I'm promoting my new paper at www.dailypaul.com/node/58... and have moved your comment over there.

The purpose of this post

was to get everybody to read and compare

my 2006 paper, An Answer to Stephen Zarlenga, www.axiomaticeconomics.co...

with Ron Paul's paper, What Do Rising Gold Prices Mean?, www.lewrockwell.com/paul/...

Good! Now that I've rocked you back on your heels with a couple of left jabs, it's time to whallop you with a right cross:

www.dailypaul.com/node/58...

Will this be on the test?

___________

Lisa C.

www.dvds4delegates.com=Ron Paul, the 44th U.S. President

Join us at: www.campaignforliberty.com

Brought to you by: www.women4ronpaul.com

Yes, it is a test...

It is a test of which theory is stronger: Axiomatic or Austrian economics.

Okay Shaka.

Summarize in one sentence, please. What is your theory?

___________

Lisa C.

www.dvds4delegates.com=Ron Paul, the 44th U.S. President

Join us at: www.campaignforliberty.com

Brought to you by: www.women4ronpaul.com

If a theory could be summarized in one sentence,

it wouldn't be called a "theory." It would be called a "bumper sticker."

However, if you really want a two-word phrase that will fit on a bumper sticker, I support free banking. You can read about it at www.axiomaticeconomics.co... and comment on it at www.dailypaul.com/node/58...

In business school, they tell you if you can't summarize

what your business does in one sentence, you don't understand your business.

You support free banking.

Okay, thanks.

___________

Lisa C.

www.dvds4delegates.com=Ron Paul, the 44th U.S. President

Join us at: www.campaignforliberty.com

Brought to you by: www.women4ronpaul.com

In addition to my previous comments.

Gold does have value. It can be used over and over and over again. You can change its state by melting it, but it still remains gold. Its life time is unlimited!

Other commodities such as oil and salt do not have an unlimited lifetime. Once they reach the final consumer and are used by the consumer they are history.

In your previous comment

you said that gold has "intrinsic value." Now you just say, "gold does have value." That's not the same thing. I argue that nothing has intrinsic value. Everything is subject to the theory of subjective value.

I know that gold has value - obviously more to Sierra and Lisa than to me - but I'm not denying that it has value. And I'm not denying that its durability makes it useful for minting into coins. Zarlenga (correctly) points out that other metals have been used for coins, but gold works best because it does not tarnish or rust. The people who used bronze or iron were never happy with their coins and would have used gold if there had been gold mines in their country.

However, cows worked fine for thousands of years, so an unlimited lifetime is not necessary for a commodity to be used as money.

Anyway, oil also has an unlimited lifetime under ground, and that is where it would be stored by the people issuing notes redeemable in oil. They don't have to bring it to the surface and then re-bury it in tanks to use it as commodity money. They just have to have the capability to produce it when called on to do so.

Is that..............

Subjected or objected value? I favor the later..................

The suffix is "...ive"

Objective Value is another term for intrinsic value, which I do not believe in.

Subjective Value is the theory Carl Menger invented in his 1871 Principles, which I defend from Stephen Zarlenga's critique at www.axiomaticeconomics.co...

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I hope this reply helps.

Re: The Suffix is "...ive"

Yes your correct. Sorry, it's been a while since I studied that one. The reason why I said I prefer the objective viewpoint, was because the way I came to understand the two stances.

Basically, I came to understand that those who are more subjective minded tend to put more emphasis on "feelings over logic" to dertermine to themselves "what is real." They also tend to respond to things more, by or out of, feelings also while the objective thinker tends to be just the opposite.

Do you understand these words in somewhat the same context? Thanks.

Get your hands on the product, and use it to teach and trade.

Sell your mining stocks, ETFs, silver paper and certificates. Get Physical possession of silver. Why would anyone in their right mind want to invest in a mining company, when it is going to produce more silver, and you want the value of silver to increase, duh.
grant

Gary North has some 56-pound bags of dimes

he'd like to sell you. www.lewrockwell.com/north...

Ha! Ha! This is exactly the sort of hucksterism that I am trying to counter.

However, this thread is an academic discussion, so let's try not to fill it up with posts about how to buy gold or silver. That sort of comment belongs at www.dailypaul.com/node/57... where the 18-year-old asked for advice.

True, but only so

Nothing has an intrinsic value, not even a cow. What if no one wants milk, or, if (hypothetically) cow milk is suddenly found to be really bad for you but goat's milk isn't.

Value is determined by two things, supply and demand. Naturally, nothing can have "intrinsic" value, because someday that value may disappear, and possibly, disappear altogether (if not almost so).

As Ron Paul discusses, the sole advantage of having gold (or silver, or platinum) over a fiat money system is that is puts a natural limit on the expansionary ability of government spending when monetary value is entrusted to government (as we do in our country).

The reason why gold is better than, say, something like oil, or salt, is because it is relatively hard to expand or contract the gold supply whereas it is relatively easy to expand the oil supply, and the supply contracts very very rapidly due to natural demand.

Re: True, but only so

I don't think intrinsic has any connotation to indefinite. I could be wrong, but other than that, I think your spot on.

I've written a new paper

titled Gold Does Not Have Intrinsic Value and am promoting it at the thread, "Cult of the Golden Calf," www.dailypaul.com/node/58...

Let's move this discussion over there, okay?

I don't believe

monetary value is entrusted to the government. It is entrusted to a private bank. The federal reserve has exclusive rights to create the federal reserve notes and to set the value of them.

I agree too.

I never said that cows have intrinsic value. My Answer to Stephen Zarlenga, www.axiomaticeconomics.co..., is about history. I said that gold coins were originally valued because they were redeemable in cows, which they were.

Nothing has intrinsic value. There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

Value is determined by the subjective theory of value, which I discuss in my Simplified Exposition, www.axiomaticeconomics.co...

I contrast my views to those of the Austrians in Section III of my Critique of Austrian Economics, www.axiomaticeconomics.co...

Robert Murphy writes, "The consumer’s good is always the 1st order, regardless of how far back we push the analysis, even if we go back to axes carved by prehistoric men." www.axiomaticeconomics.co...

This proves that he sees the source of value in past costs of production, whereas I see the source of value in future use. This is a fundamental difference between the Axiomatic and the Austrian schools of economics.

I respond to Murphy's rebuttal at www.axiomaticeconomics.co...

I agree.

Well put.

************
http://www.dvds4delegates.com

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear."

~Ambrose Redmoon

Thank you for the email

I read this post before I got your email. The article you post it is good but on the other hand I support people decision to buy gold, but doing it in a smart way...not puting all money in gold when it was $955.

And for God sake...people like Lisa C, stop telling others to buy gold in times like this saying that gold will go up. Based on what ? On some articles writen by the people who make a living selling metals ?

I don't understand this idiotic idolisation of precious metals...if is not paper is metal, so ? Hoewer has alot off money go ahead and buy some metals, that's ok...but don't send a poor bastard to spend his $200 savings on silver coins, paying the gas or shipping, paying the premium just to be forced to sell a month later cause he needs cash.

Remember, the value of the premium when you sell depends on the look of your face, the most desperate you look, the lower the premium will be...

I don't understand you. We're even.

First of all, people who are poor are not "bastards".

Secondly, nobody is telling anyone to forgo food and gas to buy gold. You haven't been paying attention.

Thirdly, I think you're posting under two different user names and I'm pretty sure I know the second one.

Ron Paul says to buy gold and, from my own experience and education, I agree with him.

Don't like gold? Don't buy it.

___________

Lisa C.

www.dvds4delegates.com=Ron Paul, the 44th U.S. President

Join us at: www.campaignforliberty.com

Brought to you by: www.women4ronpaul.com

don't worry yourself over

don't worry yourself over that guy Lisa.. you and I both know he doesn't have a clue!

as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD

What's his other user name?

"Poor bastard" is a common expression - it doesn't mean that the person is either poor or a bastard. However, Maersksea, I have seen you use words like "idiots" or "clowns" to describe gold bugs, which wasn't very diplomatic.

So, both of you, let's keep it civil. I'm trying to get an academic discussion going here.

p.s. I send e-mails to most of the people who offered the 18-year-old advice, either for or against buying gold. I would have sent you one too, Lisa, but you don't allow contact through the DP.

Gold

I would say gold does have intrinsic value. Gold can only be made from gold. If there isn't any gold to melt you can't make any. Because of the scarcity of gold it holds its intrinsic value.

On the other hand, the dollar can be made out of thin air! Just call the federal reserve and tell them to print another billion.

Every commodity has intrinsic value

In thrity years time, thousands of stock certificates have gone to zero.

Never, in thirty years time, has a single commodity gone to zero. Never.

If a person has large money/staying power and ten or twenty years to live they can trade most commodites with no stop loss orders and be assured that their controlled contract will produce a profit.

I don't use stop loss orders. I can cover whatever the market moves in price. Why get stopped out and take a loss.

Silverbugs who hold and ounce of silver will always be at least able to by a BigMac with their ounce. Guaranteed.

"Committed To The Eradication Of Poverty Among Patriots"

Commodities

Certain "commodities" do lose their value over time, e.g., wheat, rice, etc that rot over time. Gold, silver and some other commodities do not, which is why they have been favored as a "store of value" which ideally, a money system should have.

The historic and intrinsic

The historic and intrinsic value of gold has always been higher than paper... It's called the law of diminishing marginal utility. It has to do with scarcity... not use value.

This is a rather ironic comment

since the inventor of marginal utility was Carl Menger, the very person whom I am defending in my Answer to Stephen Zarlenga, www.axiomaticeconomics.co...

You can read about marginal utility in my Simplified Exposition, www.axiomaticeconomics.co...

Marginal utility is, in fact, one of my axioms.

Marginal Utility

While Carl Menger may indeed have defined and labeled the phenomenon of "marginal utility" (and I'm okeh with taking your word on that), he no more "invented" it than Newton "invented" gravity or Percival Lowell "invented" the planet Neptune.

Marginal utility is a natural law that we all obey on a daily basis. It is why the first bite of pizza is always the best and why that LAST beer was the mistake, not the four previous.

Bump for

discussion. Personally, I prefer to have my wealth in a variety options best chance at survival that way. Let's face it, money is about survival, getting something for something. Gold is good, Ammo is good, etc, etc. it's all good. Just my ignorant two cents. Peace

Cows for Gold

So what happens if all the Cows were to die. I'll take the Gold

Wisdom from reflection - as when the Moon speaks to the waves of the sea. Yeah I am way out there.