Alfredo writes:
"the problem is entirely *theoretical*. It's *within Marx's value theory*, not outside it.
It's *our* problem. *We* have to show why gold is *not* important, because in
the real world it it *not important*.
Alfredo."
Alfredo, what does "not important" mean and what is the time frame of your reasoning? For
example, if I go back only 17 years, 1980, I can see that gold at that time was much more
"important" than, say, ten years earlier, as percentage of world reserves (table below). I
would expect that in times of extreeme financial turmoil, decline in productive investment,
and trembling values of the major currencies, gold would become again "more important".
On the contrary, when the strength of an economy and its ability to pay its debts is believed
to be strong, the holding of its currency as reserve is - as long as that belief is sustained - as
good as holding gold (as the old say goes). Or are you implying that crisis in not inherent in
the current mode of production? Please clarify.
cheers
massimo
gold foreign imf sdr
share curre.share credit sh share
1950 0.698189 0.267606 0.034205 0
1960 0.649289 0.293839 0.056872 0
1970 0.439439 0.453453 0.076076 0.031031
1975 0.468459 0.460823 0.041833 0.028884
1980 0.623007 0.343457 0.0197 0.013837
1985 0.411901 0.505515 0.056168 0.026415
1987 0.389565 0.548138 0.037956 0.02434
1989 0.328537 0.622588 0.025465 0.02341
1992 0.244759 0.706838 0.025793 0.02261