4 ms·
> If the value of gold crashes it still has an inherent value because it's a useful physical good (looking pretty is not the only application of gold). The val
by bnralt 4y ago
> If the value of gold crashes it still has an inherent value because it's a useful physical good (looking pretty is not the only application of gold).
The value of gold is protected by the fact that the majority of it's holdings (at least, according to this[1]) aren't used for speculation. Still, a good chunk of them are, which means there can be pretty huge swings and it's considered a poor investment.
Have tried to say the inherent value of a dollar is because it's backed by the U.S. military, but fundamentally, it's the same reason. Dollars aren't held as speculative assets. The poor returns from the dollar are one of the reasons why people push other investments. If currency does enter into speculative territory, bad things can (and do) happen. See Hot Money[2].
Anything, even if it has inherent value, can be extremely dangerous when there's a large number of speculators. Because no matter the value, speculation can drive the price much, much higher. And it's a snowballing effect - the more an asset rises, the more people want to buy it for speculative reasons, and the more people buy it the more it rises.
And then any inherent value (if it even exists) looses significance - you're in a game of chicken with the other investors, trying to both hold on as long as you can and get out before everyone else does. The winner gets the fortune, the loser is left holding the bag.
The thing is, almost everyone in the crypto space seems interested in speculation. It might be speculation + decentralized voting rights or speculation + digital ownership, but speculation is always at the heart of it. The idea that if you get in early you'll be able to cash out for a big profit. Of course a space almost entirely driven by speculation is going to be inherently dangerous and unstable, and the "opportunities" are the same type as those of a casino.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_holdings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_holdings
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_money
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
- dang 4y agoPlease don't post HN threads flameward. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoOne could argue that the complete and utter strawman by the other poster is more likely to start a flamewar than someone asking if they understood the actual point. But let me guess, if I press you on this I'm going to get banned in a week or so for such and such reason. something something assume good faith?
- dang 4y ago> One could argue that Sure, but it always feels like the other person started it and did worse—so everybody always argues that.* Let's assume you are right and the other person is wrong. Posting an unsubstantive snark is the worst way to respond. It poisons the atmosphere, evokes worse from others, and ultimately discredits your own position (which, if you're right, means you're discrediting the truth—and that hurts everyone**). What you should do instead is one of the following: (1) respectfully provide correct information, so we can all learn; or (2) chalk it up to the internet being wrong about everything and just move on. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=%22always%20feels%22%20other%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... ** https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoguidelines state to assume good faith, I asked if they understood the actual point. What's happened here is my assumption of good faith with a question got turned into a warning by the mod because they, themselves, did not assume good faith on my part. So the question becomes, are those guidelines taken seriously by the moderators of this site or not? If they are, then maybe admit to your error and lets all just move on.
- dang 4y agoIt was obviously an unsubstantive comment, unduly personal, and basically a variation on "did you even read the article" which the site guidelines ask people not to post. That makes it flamebait, regardless of your intention when you posted it. I don't think it was a borderline call, nor is it hard to understand. Ironically, the sort of legalistic pleading you're resorting to is a sign of a lack of the good faith you're claiming. So is the style of your reply sequence: never admit or accept a thing, never address what the other person says, and simply bring up a new argument every time. These are troll tactics, whether you're using them that way intentionally or not (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and part of how we moderate HN is not to dance that way.
- arcticbull 4y agoGold is priced way higher than it's worth due to speculation, yes, but it does have intrinsic value in industrial processes and electronics. I wouldn't invest in shiny pebbles personally but there is a very real, fundamental difference.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
- paiute 4y agoCentral banks hold dollars all the time, as a speculative asset. Same reason people buy treasury notes at low interest rates.