> 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.
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?