...and down she goes!

Personally I would not want to store my wealth in beans, the elite priests in Aztec culture did value gold right? Much like today, the elites hold most of the gold while the average joe has little to none.

Gold is for storing wealth both then and now. Currency is for daily transactions (beans, now paper money)

I don't think gold is great for growing wealth, if you want to grow your wealth invest in successful businesses, but if you are just trying to protect your purchasing power then gold is great over the long term.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In 1913 the price of gold was $18.92 an ounce, silver was .61 cents an ounce.

Gold is up about 7300% and silver up about 3500% in the last 100 years. Not impressive at all when you consider inflation, but definitely better than holding paper.

 

I feel bad for the people that don't understand the Federal Reserves policy of continual devaluation of U.S. currency and leave considerable money in their bank account with no plans for it.

You have to invest in something given the Fed's policies, be it land/real estate, stocks, metals ect.

 

Yes, as a decoration and a symbol of power, but not as an exchange medium. It wasn't just cacoa beans, but also tropical feathers, cloth, shells, etc. But just because there was a value for the elites, it wasn't a "Money", it was a symbol of power. Like Bentley autos, Rolex watches, Private plane, etc today. I am just going by the research of Mexican researchers as reported. Gold was used to cover many religious and cultural domes and buildings as a symbol of their 'power' or decoration, and the expense was probably not a consideration, IMO.

 

I find this thought to be extremely biased. There is nothing magical about gold being the preferred vehicle of exchange. I simply find this statement as condescending to all other cultures around the world, equating their societies as "less advanced". You do know that when the Spanish first visited Tenochtilan it was larger than any city in Europe, right? The ONLY reason they conquered them was the Europeans, due to their advantage of geography, was able to steal the idea of gunpowder from the Chinese.

Why then do you equate Europeans as more "advanced"? In what way?

 

Yes, exactly like it started out in Babylon. Gold was a pretty thing, to be used in religious ceremonies. When their tiny deposits of gold ran out, they started trading for it with nearby kingdoms. It was in this trade that gold started to become "valued". If Babylon had larger deposits of gold, or if other culture's religions did not use it, it very well would to this day just be a moderately scarce, weird, way too soft metal with little value. Gold has almost no modern value besides decorations, (either jewelry or structural). If only judged on scarcity, it should be around $40 an ounce or less.

 

Bad time to sell, great time to buy. Silver is for the long term. On Occasion I do buy coins I sell, but those are coins that to me, I can afford to lose or take a hit on in the event, I don't sell the coin for the price I wanted.

 

I think Europe and China were more advanced than Aztecs and especially aborigines/native americans. It's my opinion, not a fact.

My opinion is that China was most advanced, but I have most admiration for native american culture since they really valued nature.

There were many reasons Aztecs fell beyond just gun powder.

 

Agreed, that is why I always get a hearty laugh when someone tells me that gold is not valued as money.

 

I am just saying its very dangerous to call other cultures less advanced simply because they didn't believe exactly what Europeans did. In fact, almost everything European colonial people changed with their "superior knowledge" was wrong. It was other cultures that had it right all along, and European thought was simply wrong. This is including cooking practices, water techniques, medical advances, etc. Around the world the "less civilized" people who were colonized are to this day paying the price for the wrong ideas imposed upon them by their "more civilized" European conquerers.

Regarding gold, yes today we TREAT IT as a monetary instrument effectively. Step back and think about that though. Its kind of silly we just arbitrarily chose some soft metal, isn't it? I know we had to choose SOMETHING, but to say that other cultures do not accept our silly random choice of a monetary instrument and instead chose their own arbitrary one, and then to say the are "less advanced" because they didn't make the same choice as us, is not only insulting but really very silly.

Btw, not meaning to pick on you Tinpot, as I doubt you meant it that way. I just wanted to post this since many people had said similar. Bottom line, middle easterners arbitratrily chose gold as a monetary store thousands of years ago. They taught this to the Greeks and Europeans, and we have done it ever since. Just because another culture did not make this same ARBITRARY choice does not make them "backward". To say so a person is claiming cultural superiority, something I find repugnant. All cultures are equal and equally fascinating in my eyes.

ANother way to look at it is the Chinese have long valued jade much more highly than westerners. Are WE the truly backward ones? Who is right? The answer is no one is "right" or "wrong", just different.

 

I wouldn't say it's silly at all, it makes good money for multiple reasons.

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=money+characteristics
The four primary characteristics of money are: (1) durability, (2) divisibility, (3) transportability, and (4) noncounterfeitability. Although a number of items or assets have served as money, those that best match these four characteristics are the ones that best function as money, the ones that best operate as a medium of exchange.

Paper makes very good money as well (divisibility is where the current fiat money system really has the major upper hand), the only bad thing about paper is that it has no inherent value, so if the printing presses are abused your paper loses value.

That is why I think paper is great for everyday transactions, but is a terrible store of wealth (most everyone reading these boards already knows this, but there are some people out there who don't), especially when the printing presses are excessively abused as they are today.

 

Of course, you probably know that none of us on this board, or at least not recently recommends holding fiat dollars. They are not designed to preserve weath and they do inflate. Luckily we have other vehicles to preserve and grow wealth. Where we may disagree is you might think this is a bad thing that dollars inflate. The fact is that the money supply needs to expand. Under the gold standard, the money supply also needed to expand but it was limited on how fast it could be dug, which may sound good to some, but actually had negative effects as the economy could not expand and had to "wait for the money to catch up". This caused a lot of hardship.

Mike

 

did they have the wheel?

 

Who needs a wheel when you have donkeys?

 

Whom? Plus, remember the Europeans stole this idea from others, like most "civilized" ideas they claim to have brought to areas they colonized. People in the new world and Australia were at a distinct disadvantage since there were not hundreds of other civilizations nearby they could steal ideas from. That is why these people were behind the technological curve.

 

Who won? :kewl:

 

Looking like China right now, isn't it?

 

"Whom?" "Whom"ever you were referring to

 

I disagree with this, the US economy expanded rapidly while were on a gold standard. Yet has languished since coming off of it and wages in real terms for workers has collapsed. (of course this is in part due to globalization, excessive regulation, and women entering the workforce)

 

WOW! Palladium took a big hit today...