NonContradiction

No. Happiness might be the consequence of the removal of suffering (say when a torture ceases torturing you), or the knowledge that someone is no longer suffering (that the torture of a third party has ceased), perhaps even the knowledge that one casuing suffering is not in a position to cause suffering anymore, but I don't think one would ever feel happiness from the idea that a torturer himself is being tortured. That appears to me to be a monsterous contradiction, not to mention sadistic.

I've always been under the impression nomial value is the currency price, real value is the currency price adjusted for inflation, deflation, etc., and intrinsic value is an item's utility value to an individual. I believe any system other than a barter system requires a third party to act as a clearing house, and that this ultimately sets up a situation where either the currency must be backed by 'trust' or some commodity, both containing inherent limitations.

"In a distant field, beyond the town, they saw the figure of a man moving slowly, contorted by the ugliness of a physical effort beyond the proper use of a human body: he was pushing a plow by hand." AS - Part 1, Ch. IX. The entire sequence of Dagny and Hank pursuing the various leads to find the creator of the motor is my absolute favorite. The imagery is so stunning; Starnesville is one of Rand's most illuminating contructs in my opinion. She understood that what some people call 'progress' is actually the most deviant form of regress.

But then wouldn't the "real" value of trade be determined thus by the amount of the gold, which is uknown (but finitite), yet also subject to spontaneous "creation" through discovery? I believe you answered my question, but it leads me to another; if I buy a piece of property and find out it has a large gold deposit on it, doesn't that allow me to manipulate the nominal and real value of money? Now that I've read some of the comments about the gold standard, I've notice that many supporters of it claim that the opponents make the "objectivist logical error" of pragmatism, yet I might argue that the supporters make the pure logical error of moving to a particular (the gold standard) from a general (some sort of system of currency backed by something containing objective value).

As you all can tell, I'm new here, but I'll jump right in. My only issue with a gold standard is that if a central authority guarantees a backing of a standard currency with gold or other commodity, couldn't the situation arise wherein the finite amout of commodity used to back the currency is surpassed by the demand for backed currency? To put it simply, couldn't the economy which requires 'backed money' grow beyond the limit of what gold can back? And perhaps even beyond what gold + silver + diamonds + ... can back? In a sense, isn't there a finite amount of material that can be used to back currency, which seems incompatible with the fact that "the economy" can be infinite in size?