Macbeth wrote:
Phrozenbot wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
What DSL said Phroz. You said " intrinsic value", the market doesn't decide ' intrinsic value'.
I'm not debating the merits of using it as currency, I'm just nitpicking about word choice.
The word choice is completely correct. If you went to a coin shop to buy a 1 ounce Canadian maple leaf, you would be paying $1,300 for the gold itself, the "intrinsic" value, plus a premium that it is a bullion coin and for the dealer to make a profit from the sale.
Like JG said, most of the value is due to rarity. If gold were as common as lead, it wouldn't be worth nearly as much.
I'm thinking of 'intrinsic value' in a philosophical sense not financial. So we're not even arguing the same thing. My point is: if people didn't value it because it's shiny, it would otherwise be fairly worthless.
Again, we're arguing two different things. In terms of finance rarity does determine worth to a point. Rarity doesn't determine philosophical value.
So yeah we're on two different pages.
I wasn't arguing the philosophical value. My point was that a gold coin minted as legal tender isn't just valued at what the government says it is, the raw material it is made of is valuable as well, irregardless of how you feel as to why it is valuable or whether the reasons for it being valuable matter in some philosophical sense. Our currency is made out of cotton, how much is the physical value of a bill? If it is less than the value they deem it, between 1 to 100 dollars, they have free reign to make as much as they want.
But +1 DSL