brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Fri May 24 22:06:01 UTC 2013
OK, then replace that asteroid example with one of an infinite number of
other possibilities, such as discovering some fairly easy way to synthesize
gold or convert lead into gold, or discovering very rich deposits of Gold
say 1000 feet underground, or whatever. To say nothing of the fact that we
will soon have robots mining gold for us, for near free, or as much of it
as we want, to continue the exponential production of Gold that has existed
for all history.
And others have expressed the insane desire of using gold, rather than
"paper" or fiat currency.
All economies grow at an exponential rate. So the only good currency is
one capable of being fairly close to that growth rate. Another critical
component, is being flexible. In other words, when bubbles pop, and we
head into a recession, we need the money supply to grow to help offset this
contraction, and the reverse when bubble start forming.
Using anything completely arbitrary like gold, usually will work in exactly
the opposite, making depressions dramatically worse, than if you had some
And the most important part of all this, if you have a currency that can't
grow at all, like Bitcoins, it would be catastrophic, since it would soon
start to even suck money away form the stock market. You wouldn't get
anyone willing to invest in any start up anywhere. Why do that, or why
invest in any other currency, when you have a guaranteed 10 times in 2 year
return, with Bitcoins, as the history is now showing and the current
consensus "Law of Bitcoins" camp is predicting (see:
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2 ) will continue.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:
> One of the things Brent's cannonizer position said was that if Nasa (or
> SpaceX?) found and brought back a large quantity of gold from outer space
> that it would devalue gold. While basic supply/demand clearly demands that
> the price of gold would go down, I personally don't think it would go down
> all that much because it is such a useful element on its own.
> I read an article in an old National Geographic where the author had a
> frying pan created out of solid gold, about 3 pounds worth. He said it made
> the best fried eggs he had ever experienced, and of course it was non-stick
> (probably before there was teflon, but I don't remember the date of the
> article) and easy to clean because gold doesn't react to anything.
> If gold came down in price, I think it would just get used for more things
> because of its unique properties... and that makes some kind of floor. It
> will always be relatively rare compared to the abundance of the other
> So, I kind of disagree about large amounts of gold causing a severe
> devaluation... What do you all think?
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat