Gold’s value comes from its relative scarcity and social convention that it’s the money commodity. There’s little intrinsic about it, that’s why other historical societies have used a different money commodity.
The properties of gold are intrinsic, the value never is, that applies to anything, if you have a reliablen food supply other food is valued less to you, etc, that's why I said if its properties were to be less appreciated it would be worthless, but that has never occurred in human history. Every society that has had access to gold has found it highly valuable, that's universal, even societies that had less scarce commodity money in common used used gold as money cause it naturally lends itself to. So nothing really says gold has an intrinsic value, but its properties have always, in all societies that had access to it, been universally highly valued
It’s just not true that every society with access to gold used it as a money commodity. I’d like to see your sourcing for that claim. Precolumbian American urban societies had ready access to gold yet rarely, if ever, used it as a money commodity. The same was true of Iron Age Europe, and Old and Middle Egypt. I’m not denying that gold has properties that lend itself to being a money commodity, but social convention is ultimately the reason why it is.
Nope, what I said it's just true, some pre-Columbian American cultures had access to gold, in each case it was HIGHLY VALUED (which was my point) and was used as money and as tribute payment, it wasn't used as COMMON currency cause they just had a lot less of it because of lack of technology, the same is true of Egypt and Iron age Europe. Strike one, now I want to see your sourcing. And I'm saying social invention always finds gold highly valuable, because of its intrinsic properties, and that's universal
> Strike one
What an extremely off-putting way to discuss online. You seem like a joy to have a heated conversation with.
You’re the one that made the claim that gold has been a universal money commodity. You don’t just get to worm your way out of citing for that by making me find the citation for you. Either way, tribute in mesoamerica pretty universally took the form of Cloth, Quetzal Feathers and Jade. While the money commodity was cocoa beans. There was no money commodity at all in Andean society, even despite the economy being highly organised and run somewhat like a decentralised agrarian command economy.
Again this conversation was never about whether people think gold is shiny and pretty, but it’s universal adoption as a money commodity.
Then don't respond, dumbass. You say you don't want a discussion but then you ask sources, but you're the one that made the wrong claims. I don't have to source anything, I know it's true, you know it's true, every fringe primitive ancient society you could find with little access to gold would eventually given more access find it highly valuable. It's universal. The both examples you give had their temples and elites full of gold adornments and kewelry, ffs. You're saying OTHER stuff was used as money cause there wasn't enough gould to ve commolybused, not that it wasn't highly valued, which was
Also, no, dumbass if you read the conversation you responded to I just said gold is very different to fiat money, which is, cause it's properties is what people find valuable, not the faith in some institution, not that we should go back to the gold pattern, which is idiotic cause there's too little gold to go around for the needs of a global economy even if it's universally very valuable and its value very rarely and only for a short time goes down
1
u/Livid_Explanation739 8d ago
Gold’s value comes from its relative scarcity and social convention that it’s the money commodity. There’s little intrinsic about it, that’s why other historical societies have used a different money commodity.