Comment by generalpass | Hacker News Reader

Comment by generalpass | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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.

In case you missed that sentence in there:

> No other element has more uses than gold.

[1] https://geology.com/minerals/gold.shtml

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?

From the Wikipedia entry on gold.

"Only 10% of the world consumption of new gold produced goes to industry"

Gold does have some industrial use and probably would have more if it weren't so expensive due to people valuing it as a reserve currency.

> From the Wikipedia entry on gold.

> "Only 10% of the world consumption of new gold produced goes to industry"

> Gold does have some industrial use and probably would have more if it weren't so expensive due to people valuing it as a reserve currency.

You aren't presenting a scientific argument. My entire point was that gold is useful and actually has more uses than any other element.

Whatever else it is used for or the reasons the price is high do not present anything against my claim.

It is so weird to just state scientific findings and be hated for it.

I'm not clear you know what science is.

you have not made a scientific argument that gold has more uses than any other element nor does geology.com

intuitively, gold is less useful and has fewer uses than iron since we tend to measure industrial output in terms of steel and not gold production

tautologically though, hydrogen takes the cake for having the most uses since if you have enough of it, it can be fused into all the other elements.

> I'm not clear you know what science is.

> you have not made a scientific argument that gold has more uses than any other element nor does geology.com

> intuitively, gold is less useful and has fewer uses than iron since we tend to measure industrial output in terms of steel and not gold production

> tautologically though, hydrogen takes the cake for having the most uses since if you have enough of it, it can be fused into all the other elements.

I'm not clear you know what an argument is.

You have not been able to determine that I stated findings, not claimed news findings.

The scientific uses will not be by volume, but by the properties of the material. So, I'm also not clear you know what science is.

Can you restate tour claim. Cause I'm not even sure what it was at this point.

> Can you restate tour claim. Cause I'm not even sure what it was at this point.

Gold has uses.

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.

Instead, you resort to a sort of ad hominem.

Instead, you resort to a sort of ad hominem.

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.

> Instead, you resort to a sort of ad hominem.

> 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]:

> Total above ground stocks (end-2017)

> Total above ground stocks: 190,040 tonnes

> Jewellery: 90,718 tonnes, 47.7% > Private investment: 40,035 tonnes, 21.1% > Official sector: 32,575 tonnes, 17.1% > Other: 26,711 tonnes, 14.1% > Below ground reserves: 54,000 tonnes

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.

[1] https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/gold-mining/how-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com