I am currently looking to take a full position in gold and silver (physical), as a protection against loss during the hard times that may be ahead of us. Before I do so, though, I am seeking to better understand the reasons behind their inherent, objective value. The sources I’ve consulted thus far are Michael Maloney of goldsilver.com (precious metals advisor to Robert Kiyosaki, the “Rich Dad” guy) and Greenspan’s 1966 article “Gold and Economic Freedom” in C:TUI. Here is what I have gleaned from Greenspan’s article:
A metal is generally chosen [as a medium of exchange] because it is homogeneous and divisible.
…
The commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury…the term “luxury good” implies scarcity and high unit value
…
In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.
Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has always been considered a luxury good. It is durable, portable, homogeneous, divisible, and, therefore, has significant advantages overall other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange.
(CTUI, p.97.)
For the most part, that seems like a decent explanation of gold’s value. As a supplement to that, Maloney’s book “Guide to Investing in Gold and Silver” gives brief historical accounts of the ascendancy of gold in tandem with the decline of various empires after they sink into enormous debt and start pumping out fiat currency (e.g. Athens, Rome, U.S. following WWI.) Clearly, then, governments and populations place high value on gold as a medium of exchange. What I still want to know, though, is:
-
How did this get started (e.g. back in ancient Greece, did one merchant say to another “I’ll trade you these nice, shiny, rare, malleable bars for your cattle,” or did one government say to another “I’ll trade you these nice, shiny, rare, malleable bars for your grain stores,” or was the evolution of gold as money more subtle and complicated than that)
-
How can I teach myself, through books and experience, to keep a well-trained eye on the value goverments and markets place on gold, silver, and on other commodities or media that might compete with these precious metals for the position of “sole” or most popular medium of exchange.
In other words (concerning #2): although people have always placed high value on precious metals, how will can I feel secure that things will continue this way? Or, if another medium is threatening to replace these, how can I understand the forces behind the new trend? I’m not expecting a pat answer to this, of course; rather, I’m embarking on a journey of long-term education, and I was wondering where might be a good place to continue from here, having read the Maloney book and the Greenspan article.