Activity
#4155·Benjamin DaviesOP revised about 13 hours agoThinking in terms of gold is less arbitrary than thinking in dollars because gold is anchored in physical reality, whereas the dollar is anchored in political decree. When you choose to measure your wealth in a unit just because you want to trade for it later, you are prioritising the convenience of a transaction over the integrity of the measurement.
Measurement requires a constant. If you measure a table with a rubber band, the "length" of the table changes depending on how hard you pull the band. The US dollar is that rubber band. Its supply and value are subject to the whims of central bankers, interest rate policies, and the shifting needs of government deficit spending. Gold, however, is a physical element with a high stock-to-flow ratio. Its total supply grows at a very slow, predictable rate that no person can speed up by decree. Measuring in gold allows you to see the real change in an asset's value, independent of the currency’s volatility.
Gold's value is anchored by the arbitrage of mining. If the value of gold rises significantly, it becomes profitable to mine more, which eventually brings the value back into equilibrium with the cost of production. This creates a feedback loop rooted in physics, economics and labour. The dollar has no such anchor; the cost to "produce" a trillion dollars is the same as the cost to produce one dollar: a few keystrokes. Using a unit that costs nothing to create to measure things that require real work is an arbitrary standard.
But if you decided, despite the dollar’s shortcomings, that you want to trade an asset for dollars, you wouldn’t measure your asset in ounces of gold. You’d measure it in dollars, wouldn’t you?
Or are you saying one should never trade assets for dollars?