Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (80431)	9/27/2011 10:58:25 AM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217792

She made a good point. Of course the gold will still exist in one form or another 100 years from now. But what will not exist is the excess value over the cost of mining more. Gold is worth the long run marginal cost of production. So when gold is priced at several times the cost of digging up more of the stuff, that's a temporary price because market clearing takes a bit of time. Prices rise until a market clears. Then prices fall again to the long run marginal cost of production. So her point was a reasonable point. The value of a dollar is based on the long run value of the body politic of the USA. While there is a bit of a problem at present, it's not a double your money back guarantee that the USA won't revert to form. In the 1980s, Japan was going to rule the world and the USA had lost its way in economic doldrums. Now, hardly anybody even mentions Japan. Nobody seems to consider Japan to be the new hegemon. It's all China China Made in China OMG China is going to rule the world coz they have reverted to type after a 600 year accident. "Reverting to type" of 600 years ago isn't anything I'd want to be involved with even without knowing the intricacies of what happened to hordes of individuals back in the day. China is not going to do very well. Working for low pay gets a grubstake but it doesn't enable the next stage which is reinventing the world. When the aim is to revert to type of 600 years ago, what will happen is what happened 600 years ago = dynastic totalitarianism and repression of individuals. China does not turn people loose to do and say as they will. A criticism of Japan in the 1980s was that companies lacked imagination and inventiveness. A lifetime of repression into cultural compliance makes people unable to come up with new things. Livedoor was breaking the mold a few years ago. They tried to hire Geeks from around the world to work in Japan. They were stymied by government. Then they were skooshed by government. Livedoor was borrowing money from Lehman Brothers and the like, taking over other companies, and going against the old boys' club. Takafumi Horie was arrested and punished. That's like arresting and punishing Steve Jobs. [That's not a perfect comparison but near enough for government work]. So while the USA isn't perfect [or on a scale of 0 to 10 above 4], it's a lot better than the competition [in plenty of ways that matter]. In the sense that a US$ represents the value of the people of the USA, which is an ethereal thing made of of the minds of hundreds of millions of people, it's a more realistic value than the excess value of gold over and above the long run marginal cost of production. Especially when I have plans to destroy that excess value. I do not plan to destroy the value of the minds of the USA. On the contrary, I plan to help them really get moving. Paradoxically, the aethereal [US$] is more real, robust, permanent and valuable than the superficially immutable, permanent, material, and valuable [gold]. To the perspicacious, she made an excellent point. In tv sound bites, it's sometimes hard to convey such ideas against a sea of cliches and slogans. She did her best. Or, maybe she simply had no idea what's going on and would say "Huh?" if she read the above, which I am not necessarily agreeing with, just explaining the point of view she was giving [maybe]. Mqurice