[/quote]PeterZ wrote:What you are seeing the decreased utility of currency as a means of storing wealth. It's utility for transferring wealth remains but monetary shanagins have made it simply awful to actually save wealth using currency. Better to store wealth in bonds, stock certificates and precious metals.
Gold is preferred because its uses do not consume it or transform it into something that may not be easily transported. Jewelry's value for storing easily transportable wealth is similar. Because this is true, gold has served us well as both a currency and a means to store wealth. Land is more useful but requires immobility to harvest its value. Copper and steel require skills to transform into something useful.
snip
Gold has value as currency, and a little bit as jewelry. Silver has value as currency, and a number of industrial uses. However the value of either as currency depends primarily in the storing and/or transporting of value. Real wealth is food such as potatoes; shelter, whether house or tepee; and other things with utility. However, many of these are either things that spoil or are not easily transported. The primary purpose of currency is to make trading easier than barter, the secondary one is to provide an accepted symbol for value storage or transport. What is used for money only matters in that it must be acceptable.
PS. In Venezuala, due to a new government policy, beer is no longer made locally. The people there have put up with a lot of other things from the government, but I wonder?
Whenever you encounter a business model that’s insane, you can be sure that government is involved.
Perhaps because an insane business model wrecks the business, but given a glib enough tongue, not the politician until the final blow up
