On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 04:55 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:
If we compare gold with land, point by point:
Decay: gold: no land: no
Limited supply: gold: limited , although still mining an extra 2% per annum
land: obviously limited. Some categories of land are
actually getting scarcer (ex. forests)
Productive: gold : no land: YES
Good analysis, but you omitted the following points:
Portable: gold: yes land: no Easy to conceal: gold: yes land: no Easily divisible: gold: yes land: no Useful in certain industrial applications: gold: yes land: no Very high ratio of value to physical size: gold: yes land: no
Conclusion: land is better than gold
There is no need for categorical assertions of superiority like this. That's like saying chain saws are better than surgical scalpels.
Land is good in some ways; gold is good in others. There is no need to "choose" one as some kind of absolutely superior standard of value. They're both valuable.
The same kind of consideration applies to everything else in life, even computer programming languages.
-- Patrick
--- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
