From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 09:39:27 EST
Thanks Gerry, there must be some funny delays on my server.. as for gold, send me some anytime.!!!!.. well I see your point, but I was allowing for some dramatic effect in the case of imperialisr states... but it is certainly true for the Indian peasant... still wherte personal wealth still requires the form of golden money renfdered as tons of jewelry....there is also a flourishing 'second' hand gold market in the form of trinkets, coins with pawnbrokers etc in all middle/poor areas of the world... which might tell us something. I any case you are pointing to the admin arrangements which sustain fiduciary issue and 'force its course'... so what you say is to be expected ( although since contracts for houses are cleared via solicitors (lawyers) here I'm sure they wouldn't worry.. the bank would accept the gold .. and that is the point, if banks get 'picky' let me know and I'll think about why!!!!!)) By the way have you heard story that Kennedy 'got it' because he was planning to release the silver which would challenge gold's position? Cheers paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:02 PM Subject: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Re: recent references on 'problem' of money commodity? Yes, Paul B, the message you sent on Sunday replying to Rakesh was posted at that time. Some time ago (on November 19) you wrote: >>>> As a matter of fact Fred, I know of no one who would not be prepared to accept a certain quantity of gold for any of their property , ( should they wish to sell it, even if they later had to exchange it for paper for other reasons), that is to say that this commodity remains the money commodity, par excellence.. <<< Interesting, since I know of no one (save, possibly, Claus, Akira, or yourself) who would be prepared to accept a certain quantity of gold in exchange for their property. I know that if I wanted to sell property like a house (which I don't own) or a boat (which I do) I wouldn't accept gold as payment. To begin with, I would have no confidence that it was real or that it was 'pure'. I certainly wouldn't want to pay the extra expense and put up with a delay to hire an appraiser. Also, I would feel very uncomfortable accepting gold from a security perspective (I'd much rather receive a bank check). And then I'd have the hassle and delay of selling the gold. And -- given the frequent fluctuations in the price of gold (yes, gold _does_ have a price) -- I would feel uncomfortable holding on to the gold since I am not interested in gold speculation. And -- more to the point -- I know of no one in my community who would accept gold as payment for property of any significant worth. If someone went to my landlord's office and proposed to pay for real estate in gold, s/he would get laughed out of the office. In solidarity, Jerry PS: thanks about the reference to "course." I guess it's another instance of how language has changed since Marx's time. Martha, Fred, and you have each in your own ways helped to solve the "mystery."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 00:00:02 EST