DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - What would the effect on the economy be if gold became abundant?

**AntonayPina** · 06-18-2008, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Straybow
Ah, so when the farmer sells grain, he's just exchanging one form of money for another and his land and labor produce no wealth. And when the grain is ground and sold as bread in the supermarket no wealth is created. You're arguing against yourself here. Grain is another commodity, and now you're arguing against how it's real value, when with Gold you are arguing that it's not real value.

They're both commoditized and traded on exchanges. Your position is the one that denies that the underlying has actual value. I had already pointed out several times that underlying has actual value, in regards to both stocks and commodities. Of course you can't read, so you missed that.

As for the "zero sum", we were talking about the exchanges. You wanted to pretend commodity markets were "zero sum" because no money was created or destroyed in the process, only transferred. Well that's the same for the stock market as well. (And your grain commodities too.)

Feel free to continue arguing against yourself though, it's great fun to watch.

Stock prices loosely but ultimately come from the value of products or services provided by the company of which the stock represents ownership. That is real production of wealth. That doesn't change the fact that the stock market operates in the "zero sum" manner which you attribute solely to commodities markets.

Gold is real wealth. Mining Gold is producing more wealth. Reducing Gold to being worthless is destroying wealth, even though no currency (other than Gold currency) is lost in the process. Your argument that it is otherwise is inane.

06-18-2008, 05:29 AM	#24
AntonayPina Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 522 Senior Member	Originally posted by Straybow Ah, so when the farmer sells grain, he's just exchanging one form of money for another and his land and labor produce no wealth. And when the grain is ground and sold as bread in the supermarket no wealth is created. You're arguing against yourself here. Grain is another commodity, and now you're arguing against how it's real value, when with Gold you are arguing that it's not real value. They're both commoditized and traded on exchanges. Your position is the one that denies that the underlying has actual value. I had already pointed out several times that underlying has actual value, in regards to both stocks and commodities. Of course you can't read, so you missed that. As for the "zero sum", we were talking about the exchanges. You wanted to pretend commodity markets were "zero sum" because no money was created or destroyed in the process, only transferred. Well that's the same for the stock market as well. (And your grain commodities too.) Feel free to continue arguing against yourself though, it's great fun to watch. Stock prices loosely but ultimately come from the value of products or services provided by the company of which the stock represents ownership. That is real production of wealth. That doesn't change the fact that the stock market operates in the "zero sum" manner which you attribute solely to commodities markets. Gold is real wealth. Mining Gold is producing more wealth. Reducing Gold to being worthless is destroying wealth, even though no currency (other than Gold currency) is lost in the process. Your argument that it is otherwise is inane.
	Quote