heinz blasnik: Member 7417451
made the following point in a discussion: ”in modern times, the world's stock of gold grows at about 2% p.a., and no large discoveries are likely to markedly change this growth rate. as Fekete explains, there is no limit to the marginal utility of gold - just because you own say 10 gold coins, your desire to own an 11th isn't less than your desire to own a 10th was back when you owned 9.”
Message 22162471
A point he subsequently rejected the very next day: “in reference to Fekete - i agree, i completely forgot that i had already rejected Fekete's argument after at first accepting it."
Why does he do this?
Clearly, Heinz exhibits the characteristics of a gold bug. Gold bugs generally claim that fiat money is a fraud, gold is the only true money, and that our entire economy is being propped up by excessive credit expansion. Hopefully, anyone reading this thread will know that that view cannot be supported by an objective review of all available data.
Now why would Heinz be so quick to reverse his error and publicly reject the Feteke’s assertion, when at first the Feteke view had gained much traction in the gold bug community? Well, it was shown rather quickly that the property of gold Feteke illustrated, putting aside for the moment that it was a false property, derived from it’s use as a medium of exchange. Consequently any medium of exchange, including fiat currencies, had the potential to equal gold as money (and for other reasons to surpass gold). Clearly, by accepting Feteke, the gold bug community had undermined its own position vis-à-vis gold as the only true money.
This episode shows why being an advocate is bound to lead to logical inconsistencies, and almost certainly asset allocation errors. It is difficult enough to interpret economic data objectively we do not need to burden ourselves further by rejecting certain data simply because it contradicts the way we want things to be. |
