Inca rulers and the upper class used gold for decoration and to make things like tableware from - the point of this discussion is whether it was used as currenc

Inca rulers and the upper class used gold for decoration and to make things like tableware from - the point of this discussion is whether it was used as currency, which it wasn't. How are you going to call something a currency when it's only hanging on the wall of the upper 2% of society? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but you said that gold was used by all societies of the last 1000's of years as a currency, but it flat out isn't. Most societies, yes, but not all - and that's important, because it shows that in places where there is a relative abundance of gold, it's not good as a currency (the non-use of gold in Inca times was not solely because of high supply, I'm not interested in arguing details on Inca culture and economics here because frankly I don't know much more about it than what a couple of tour guides told me). Anyway, let's go back to 2007. A house in Phoenix that sold for 250k in 2004 just reached one million. Which would you have rather bought back in 2004? That house, or a gold eagle? My point - it's easy to make a 'case' with perfect hindsight. There are several drivers to the current high price of gold; people diversifying their portfolios into precious metals, Chinese millionaire who have limited options for storing value, increasing demand from emerging markets for jewelry. That's not the point; the point is that you are claiming that gold has 'intrinsic' value ('Gold is real money that holds it's value over time.'). That's bullshit, plain and simple. Yes, gold has historically been a relatively constant value store, but there is nothing intrinsically valuable about it, and (the vast majority of) those claiming it is are alarmist nutcases with little grasp of economics.