I don't think this is correct. Because as you can see the spot price of silver has gone down, the price for silver coins has gone up by more than double the amount the spot price has declined. Meaning, people are buying silver out of fear.
My guess is that this is the product of silver prices being driven by industry much more than gold prices are. We're looking at a supply side decline here which means a decline in demand for the things that go into making other things.
> I don't think this is correct. Because as you can see the spot price of silver has gone down, the price for silver coins has gone up by more than double the amount the spot price has declined. Meaning, people are buying silver out of fear.
> My guess is that this is the product of silver prices being driven by industry much more than gold prices are. We're looking at a supply side decline here which means a decline in demand for the things that go into making other things.
> Gold is far less useful industrially than silver.
For whatever reason, there is a common misconception regarding the usefulness of gold. Commonly on any of the popular investment shows and websites, you will see various people stating "gold has no use" without any measure of a qualifying statement.
My perception is that these people likely mean "gold has no use [as an asset]." The degree to which this is correct is not what I'm trying to address, but rather the literal interpretation of the statement that could be read as "gold has [absolutely] no use."
Here is the intro from the article on gold at geology.com[1], which doesn't have a dog in this fight:
> What is Gold?
> Native gold is an element and a mineral. It is highly prized by people because of its attractive color, its rarity, resistance to tarnish, and its many special properties - some of which are unique to gold. No other element has more uses than gold. All of these factors help support a price of gold that is higher than all but a few other metals.
The argument being made is about industrial use. Outside of electronics which have such little gold that it's not even worth the chemicals to extract it back out, Gold really doesn't have much use industrially. It's use as a currency and jewelry is quite obvious, but that's another human fiction like fiat currency. It has no other inherent value. We can't eat it. We can't even really wipe our butts with it. Gold is shiny, and remains shiny for a long time. End of story.
> The argument being made is about industrial use. Outside of electronics which have such little gold that it's not even worth the chemicals to extract it back out, Gold really doesn't have much use industrially. It's use as a currency and jewelry is quite obvious, but that's another human fiction like fiat currency. It has no other inherent value. We can't eat it. We can't even really wipe our butts with it. Gold is shiny, and remains shiny for a long time. End of story.
Sounds like a very scientific position you've laid out here against the editors ate geology.com. Why don't you send that to them and post there response here?
Geology.com isn't scientific literature. It's a SEO spam site.
You can tell because (a) the way the page is covered in ads, (b) the simple language used to improve search engine traffic and (c) the lack of references.
> Geology.com isn't scientific literature. It's a SEO spam site.
> You can tell because (a) the way the page is covered in ads, (b) the simple language used to improve search engine traffic and (c) the lack of references.
If the information provided is so poor, you should easily be able to disprove the claims.
> You appealed to authority, it's pretty legitimate to point out that it isn't actually an authority on the subject.
> If the information provided is so poor, you should easily be able to disprove the claims.
> As previously pointed out, only 10% of gold is used in industry.
I'm guessing you are referring to an appeal to false authority, because the acquisition of all knowledge presumably originates from an authority. If you are claiming that geology.com has presented false information, then you need to demonstrate this. Stating that it makes money from ads is not a claim against the provided information. You have inserted an arbitrarily derived claim.
Your statement of percent of gold makes no sense. From the World Gold Council[1]:
Further, if we take the total amount of above ground stocks and multiply it by the current gold price of around $1500, we find that the current markets value the total gold at over $10 trillion. If 90% of gold mined isn't in use, why is it valued at $9 trillion? And if the remaining 10% of gold has such little usefulness, why choose such an expensive mineral?
And all of this supports my original point that gold has uses.
My guess is that this is the product of silver prices being driven by industry much more than gold prices are. We're looking at a supply side decline here which means a decline in demand for the things that go into making other things.
Gold is far less useful industrially than silver.