This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why Russia And China Are Buying Gold, According To An Economics Professor
We already know that to at least one, sadly all too prominent, career economist gold is held by central banks simply due to "tradition." Here is how another professor of economics perceives the value of gold to central banks.
To Joshua Aizenman, a professor of economics and international relations at the University of Southern California, dabbling in gold is mainly an attempt by bankers and officials to send a message to the world — one that signals an appetite for power or that broadcasts a desire to challenge a rival. “I doubt that the Chinese or the Russians actually believe that gold is such a great investment in terms of pure returns,” Professor Aizenman said. “But if they’re trying to suggest that they’re unhappy with the dollar or that they want to become a global player, then gold is very powerful.
“The investment is a symbol,” he explained. “It’s made for political, not financial, gain.”
That explains it: not just tradition, but symbolic tradition. Actually, let's just combined what all prominent economists have recently said about gold, and we get... a 6000-year-old symbolically traditional bubble.
Source: NYT.
»
- 50873 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Yes professor because chopped down trees and 010101010101010111001 will always be worth more than a rare commodity. Truthfully it's probably not even trees anymore but fucking soybeans or something.
Never was 'trees'. Has been made of cotton for quite some time.
Economists are transfixed on paper. But when your premier paper crashes, how to you explain the value lost? Same piece of paper. Different value. If there's any value in paper, it's only because people believe it has value. When people stop believing in anything, the assignment of whatever value was attached to it also disappears. People could believe that gold has no value. People could just walk around and offer it to people, and people might refuse it, because they believed it had no value. Or they could just gather it up and throw it away. But since we haven't seen that yet throughout history, there's something different about gold. Economists just have a real problem with that.
They can keep their FN gold.
*WE* have paper, pscyopaths, and ass-rapers.
I saw it...I knew it...I clicked anyway...
And now it's all over my shoe.
If gold is so useless, one has to wonder why the US government goes to such great lengths to secure it at Ft Knox. Are those tanks just 'symbolic'?
So there must be gold in Ft Knox because there are tanks at Ft Knox. And if there were no tanks at Ft Knox then you might believe the gold was not there? Hmmmm. Perception is reality my friend.
The tanks have gone to Fort Benning by the way. No more armor units at Knox.
Yo, FUCK gold. Y'all are going to need goats and chickens.
From the NYT article:
At a time when central banks around the globe have tried to foster growth by aggressively printing money — which can in theory devalue sovereign currencies —
In Theory?
Ok, let's try this out.
I cut a pie into 8 pieces. That's your piece.
5 minutes later I cut that pie again in 16 pieces and then hand you one slice and tell you that you still have one slice which is the same as you had before, so it's equal and the value is the same.
Is this advanced PhD. math and I'm just too dumb to get it? They probably don't use pies in Post Grad School.
Does anyone find it odd that so many of the pro-gold articles are followed with link to a site for buying gold or a gold newsletter?
The above one isn't. DOH!!!
Who said this article was pro-gold? Not me... Doh!
I alway found it strange that car magazines had car ads.
Who thought that one up?
I must have touched a nerve.
If you like your gold, you can keep your gold.
(At least until the government wants it, and then........... Good luck)
I didn't study the symbology of econology so I can clearly have no say on gold's true value, but I do like a good logical fallacy. I find credentials hilarious in this respect.
But it is nice to see that USC's PhD. program for former tackling dummies is such a rousing success.
Step 1
Print money
Step 2
Buy gold
Step 3
Laugh while the people holding the paper go bankrupt after you print into oblivion
Step 4
Circulate gold in your country as money
Step 5
You are now richer than every other nation who took your money , and it doesn't matter how hard your currency fell.
Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
The Central Bank of Me is holding Gold and Silver.
Educated fool.
Idiotic fool.. probably taught Ebonics in is younger days then was hired to teach Economics by someone at USC that mis-read his resume.
Gold is only a relic when Central Banks don't own it. They don't just own it, they HOARD it. It must be pretty fucking important then.
Most are too young to remember a time when it was ILLEGAL to own gold in the US. Sure, you could own jewelry but it had to be 14k or less. I remember as a expat kid living in southern europe before Ford made it legal to own gold again. My parents were shocked that I bought 18k gold chains at the market. They told me we could be in trouble bringing it back to the States. Later that year, Nixon closed the "gold window" and Ford later decreed that citizens could once again own gold. I think those gold chains cost about $30 and weigh about 1 oz. I still have them. :)
I love articles like this one from the CA professor, who is walking talking breathing proof that anyone can get a PhD and still be a fucking moron. Reinforces my view that money spent to get a professional degree stamped on your ass is money wasted.
Notice how many fucking idiots who have never had two brain cells connect on a regular basis are now jumping head first into the gold conversation. Everyone of thse latecomers has an opinion on gold. Why, I wonder, do these people suddenly find gold something to write about and comment on? Why now? What is suddenly worrying them?
...just another fool among many.