From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 18:11:50 EST
Let me put it another way, had I a couple of million dollars a year or more ago I can tell you that I would have dumped them for gold... and I would keep it as well for a few more years.. Paul. ----- Original Message ----- From: <cmgermer@UFPR.BR> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] recent references on 'problem' of money commodity? > In a reply to Paul B, Jerry wrote: > > 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.. <<< > > Jerry: > 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. > > Claus: > You might be right in claiming that gold is no longer money today, but > your arguments are unconvincing and don't support your claim. The essence > of your argument is that gold is not money because it does not circulate > as money. Well, such an argument is only acceptable in a quantity theory > framework, because according to this theory money has only one function - > that of means of circulation - and for this reason money cannot have value > of its own. In the framework of Marx's theory your argument is > unsustainable, because in this case the prevalence of the function of > means of payment and the development of an integrated banking system imply > that money does NOT need to circulate in person, without being displaced > from its role as money. > I think in normal conditions I would not accept (and I guess no one would) > an uncertified piece of gold in the example you gave. I wouldn't because > gold coins are not issued for the the usual functions of means of > circulation and of payment. This doesn't prove your point either, because > gold is issued in certified bars which perform very specific functions of > money, allowed by the nature of the global monetary system (credit system > in Marx's terms). Thus, the fact that you and I don't use gold bars in our > activities does not prove that they don't perform functions of money. > > Comradely, > Claus. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 05 2004 - 00:00:01 EST