3 ms·

The impact of everyone selling their silverware on solar panel prices (and probably even bullion prices) would be so miniscule that it doesn't even matter. So d

The impact of everyone selling their silverware on solar panel prices (and probably even bullion prices) would be so miniscule that it doesn't even matter. So don't destroy your culturally significant artifacts because of such absurd hypotheticals as "I'm making the world a better place by doing this"...

pfdietz 1y ago
Yes, by all means allow the "culturally significant artifacts" to sit unused, taking up space, until your estate sale where they will be purchased for their scrap value. The attachment to these things is a distant echo of when they were signs of social status, when maybe 1% of households, the rich ones, would have silver flatware (and the servants to keep it polished.) Now? They are superfluous matter than serves to weight down our lives.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  You might think this is "superfluous matter" but it is literally physical wealth in your hand, on top of being historically significant (in some cases). It is still probably only owned and used by the top 1%. The bottom line is, you should sell silver if you feel like the sale price is worth it, or you personally hate it. Not because you dream of solar panels and what not, that hardly use much of it at all. As with most manufactured goods, it is better to sell silverware to continue to be used as silverware, than to scrap it.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    You'd do better to sell the silver and invest in things that actually produce wealth.
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      Perhaps. Or you could lose money. That is the difference between having wealth and investing.
  - _dain_ 1y ago
    If you want to keep silver as wealth, buy actual silver coins and bars. Not dinnerware. The top 1% own ETF shares, and the top 0.001% own industries.
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      Sterling silver is more pure than most constitutional silver coins (which is exactly why they are not more pure; the mint does not want the coins melted constantly). If you want to own a bunch of silver for investment and also enjoy having it, there's nothing wrong with having some of it in dinnerware.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    > literally physical wealth in your hand In almost all cases of "heirlooms", the area of land taken up by the object is worth more than the object. Other than gold, very little stuff has enough value density.
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      That is the wrong way to think about it. Many places have buildings where the structure costs less than the land it's on. You won't get rid of your car because of the land under it. The space required for a box of silverware is similar to a small pack of toilet paper. Shall we throw that out too?
      - pfdietz 1y ago
        In many such places people buy houses explicitly to tear them down and build something better. We'd be seeing even more of that if zoning didn't restrict it.
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        "Better" is a subjective judgement. Maybe zoning has drawbacks but letting people do what they want with their property is important. If you have something better to do with it, go persuade them and pay them to let you enact a different plan.
owenversteeg 1y ago
Funny enough, this sort of thing is _usually_ true. Civilians doing things in some sort of vaguely coordinated mass movement is typically a very weak force vs any industrial process. See, for example, WWII scrap drives, which were far more invasive and not terribly effective, even for easily recycled materials like aluminum. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41736/were-world-war-ii-scrap-drives-in-the-united-states-truly-necessary-for-the-proc https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41736/were-worl... Modern industrial forces are generally far, far more powerful than we realize. The great Falun mine, jewel of Sweden, producer of 2/3rds of all Europe's copper, builder of empires, produced 3,000 tons/year at its absolute peak; today, current copper production is quite mechanized and produces 18.3M tons/year. There is approximately nothing we can do by hand, or with our household items, that matches the power of industry. But silver, with its small production, is a bit of an outlier. Worldwide silver production is only 25k metric tons/year, so if each of 131 million US households has a 52-piece set of .925 sterling silver at 1 troy oz sterling silver/piece, that is 0.925 * 52 piece * 1 troy oz/piece * 31.1g/troy oz * 131 million or 196k metric tons. Obviously nowhere near every household will have a full 52-pc set, some will have none and some will have larger sets, but if even 1/4 of households sell just one set, that is two entire years of worldwide silver production; the effects would be massive.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  I doubt most households even have a 52 piece set of stainless steel flatware, much less silverware. I doubt that even 1 in 10 has any real silverware enough to set a table of 4. You are right about silver production but the cost of silver is negligible in any product except for actual silver jewelry and tableware. It is not worth badgering people to part with precious personal items to save $0.50 per solar panel or some shit. The price of silver is $41 per troy oz, or a little over a dollar per gram. Getting rid of silver for this reason is like getting rid of diamond jewelry because someone could use those diamonds to make high-precision cutting equipment for manufacture of EVs and solar panels. Everything you touch on a daily basis can be used for something else. You don't need to feel guilty because someone else might want it more. The market system we have ensures that if someone else wants it more than you, for a sufficiently good reason, they can prove it by simply buying it at the asking price.

pfdietz 1y ago

Yes, by all means allow the "culturally significant artifacts" to sit unused, taking up space, until your estate sale where they will be purchased for their scrap value. The attachment to these things is a distant echo of when they were signs of social status, when maybe 1% of households, the rich ones, would have silver flatware (and the servants to keep it polished.) Now? They are superfluous matter than serves to weight down our lives.

wakawaka28 1y ago
You might think this is "superfluous matter" but it is literally physical wealth in your hand, on top of being historically significant (in some cases). It is still probably only owned and used by the top 1%. The bottom line is, you should sell silver if you feel like the sale price is worth it, or you personally hate it. Not because you dream of solar panels and what not, that hardly use much of it at all. As with most manufactured goods, it is better to sell silverware to continue to be used as silverware, than to scrap it.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  You'd do better to sell the silver and invest in things that actually produce wealth.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    Perhaps. Or you could lose money. That is the difference between having wealth and investing.
- _dain_ 1y ago
  If you want to keep silver as wealth, buy actual silver coins and bars. Not dinnerware. The top 1% own ETF shares, and the top 0.001% own industries.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    Sterling silver is more pure than most constitutional silver coins (which is exactly why they are not more pure; the mint does not want the coins melted constantly). If you want to own a bunch of silver for investment and also enjoy having it, there's nothing wrong with having some of it in dinnerware.
- pjc50 1y ago
  > literally physical wealth in your hand In almost all cases of "heirlooms", the area of land taken up by the object is worth more than the object. Other than gold, very little stuff has enough value density.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    That is the wrong way to think about it. Many places have buildings where the structure costs less than the land it's on. You won't get rid of your car because of the land under it. The space required for a box of silverware is similar to a small pack of toilet paper. Shall we throw that out too?
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      In many such places people buy houses explicitly to tear them down and build something better. We'd be seeing even more of that if zoning didn't restrict it.
      - wakawaka28 1y ago
        "Better" is a subjective judgement. Maybe zoning has drawbacks but letting people do what they want with their property is important. If you have something better to do with it, go persuade them and pay them to let you enact a different plan.

owenversteeg 1y ago

Funny enough, this sort of thing is _usually_ true. Civilians doing things in some sort of vaguely coordinated mass movement is typically a very weak force vs any industrial process. See, for example, WWII scrap drives, which were far more invasive and not terribly effective, even for easily recycled materials like aluminum. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41736/were-world-war-ii-scrap-drives-in-the-united-states-truly-necessary-for-the-proc https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41736/were-worl... Modern industrial forces are generally far, far more powerful than we realize. The great Falun mine, jewel of Sweden, producer of 2/3rds of all Europe's copper, builder of empires, produced 3,000 tons/year at its absolute peak; today, current copper production is quite mechanized and produces 18.3M tons/year. There is approximately nothing we can do by hand, or with our household items, that matches the power of industry. But silver, with its small production, is a bit of an outlier. Worldwide silver production is only 25k metric tons/year, so if each of 131 million US households has a 52-piece set of .925 sterling silver at 1 troy oz sterling silver/piece, that is 0.925 * 52 piece * 1 troy oz/piece * 31.1g/troy oz * 131 million or 196k metric tons. Obviously nowhere near every household will have a full 52-pc set, some will have none and some will have larger sets, but if even 1/4 of households sell just one set, that is two entire years of worldwide silver production; the effects would be massive.

wakawaka28 1y ago
I doubt most households even have a 52 piece set of stainless steel flatware, much less silverware. I doubt that even 1 in 10 has any real silverware enough to set a table of 4. You are right about silver production but the cost of silver is negligible in any product except for actual silver jewelry and tableware. It is not worth badgering people to part with precious personal items to save $0.50 per solar panel or some shit. The price of silver is $41 per troy oz, or a little over a dollar per gram. Getting rid of silver for this reason is like getting rid of diamond jewelry because someone could use those diamonds to make high-precision cutting equipment for manufacture of EVs and solar panels. Everything you touch on a daily basis can be used for something else. You don't need to feel guilty because someone else might want it more. The market system we have ensures that if someone else wants it more than you, for a sufficiently good reason, they can prove it by simply buying it at the asking price.