Oil and Gold Decoupling?

[Guest]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

Jim for a guy who's meekly acquiesced to being called "Contrary Old Fart" for the past three years around here you seem to have a predilection for taking the abuse lying down. Not very proud of your own handle, are you?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

Jim for a guy who's meekly acquiesced to being called "Contrary Old Fart" for the past three years around here you seem to have a predilection for taking the abuse lying down. Not very proud of your own handle, are you?

I chose it myself, Luke, as what I thought was as apt description, so once again, as is so often the case with you, your surmise is wrong.

Once you pass the blood tests, it would be interesting to see how you would label yourself--given a limitation of two or three words, which I surmise you wouldn't be able to handle.

[Guest]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

I chose it myself Luke as what I thought was as apt description

You make my point for me Jim. Why is it that I don't have that choice you apparently had, eh, or does this elementary insight escape you? Maybe the ability to "chose one's own name" around here is doled out like some silly little frat-house privilege. I object. FRED and I have not made any sufficient personal acquaintance outside these web pages for him to gain that privilege at my expense. He does not enjoy this privilege over me, or if he presumes it over my objection, he will certainly not enjoy it. Now do me a favor and go mind someone else's business.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

You make my point for me Jim. Why is it that I don't have that choice you apparently had, eh, or does this elementary insight escape you? Maybe the ability to "chose one's own name" around here is doled out like some silly little frat-house privilege. I object. FRED and I have not made any sufficient personal acquaintance outside these web pages for him to gain that privilege at my expense. He does not enjoy this privilege over me, or if he presumes it over my objection, he will certainly not enjoy it. Now do me a favor and go mind someone else's business.

It's so simple, Luke, I am a nice guy and am someone who does not appear to need psychiatric oversight (at least most of the time).

[GRG55]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

LargoWinch -

With all respect to you, I am not the "Mad Scientist".

This is a little moo-moo-cow-bell that FRED stuck on me this past weekend to get his jollies. Apparently the notion that inviduals identities around here are their own property is an idea FRED regards with genuine puzzlement. As I can't very well alter FRED's name (and as I'm quite good with word-puns I could come up with some other really comical alternatives), it seems I am currently stuck with his latest toying around with my new handle. However I will repost this text verbatim any time anyone calls me "Mad Scientist", until FRED gets tired of this game. Or maybe he'll just boot me off of these pages to show "who has the last word", which would be a real editorial tour-de-force. :rolleyes:

I have never liked any part of me being "owned" by someone else, even if it's just a name - it's an extremely minor point, but not inconsequential. FRED might try to understand that some of us have put forward contributions around here which the editorial line seems to have quietly adopted over time, and I for one have noted the customary "hat tip" seems a traditional courtesy which is dispensed somewhat arbitrarily. I've seen one or two ideas which were bitterly disputed around here a couple of years ago become thoroughly worked into the core of iTulip editorials, without a whisper of acknowledgment of where they were come by.

Now a couple of days ago, I made a simple request that the editor not feel entitled to attach to my posts any verbiage he finds entertaining, but which I don't wish to see attached to my name. That request has been ignored. One is left with the distinct impression, that the right to determine what one is named around here is regarded editorially as a "privilege", or maybe some sort of game, where if one ingratiates oneself with the editor one can "earn dispensations", to then be called by more grandiose circus-names, or maybe even win "hat tips", rather than get saddled with sillier circus-names, and not win any "hat tips". Pardon me therefore for expressing my reaction with a touch of acid. I find the editorial read of the protocols here questionable, arbitrary and unacceptable.

Can someone explain to me why I cannot choose my own name but must defer to this FRED for "guidance" on the matter?

"Hat tips on adopted broad theses are for iTulip chums", and "Circus-names are for the Editor to choose". Eh? Are we having enough fun with this yet?

Lukester: Don't take it personally. And take comfort that around these parts apparently being a Mad Scientist trumps being a Sane Athiest (every day but Sunday)...:p

[photoncounter]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

Silver has still not crossed its all-time high of $54 reached long ago in 1980 or even the average selling price of $24 an ounce 28 years ago.

Am I missing something ?

[krakknisse]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

I nominate Lukester for "Chief Doomster" instead of "Mad Scientist". Go, Luke! Yall'be knocking on Lukester's door when TSHTF, seeing as you can't nowhere near afford the air fare to Northern Europe to knock on the door of your CrashGnome. He has his preps in order.

[Judas]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

The only value Gold has is the value people think it has - it basically has no utility... gold has been used as currency for thousands of years.

Its utility is that it serves as currency, and is well suited to the task in form, tradition, and psychology.

We need currency just like we need other utilitarian stuff.

[Munger]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

Its utility is that it serves as currency, and is well suited to the task in form, tradition, and psychology.

We need currency just like we need other utilitarian stuff.

As is so with the American dollar. So ... you're saying the only value it has is that which other people think it has ... ?

[Judas]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

As is so with the American dollar. So ... you're saying the only value it has is that which other people think it has ... ?

Well, if you want to get technical just about EVERYTHING that isn't food, water, clothing, or shelter only has the value people think it has, and even those are debatable in respect to the specifics (bugs are food, but how valuable when other food sources are available?). We don't really need toasters, or toilet paper, or much of anything else... but they all have a function that gives them value to people in their various roles. A radio is worthless if you don't listen to the radio, so it has no value?... but I spent $170 on a nice DX390 years ago. I only THINK it has value I suppose.

I'm saying that someone could write on papyrus, vellum, cloth, paper, wood, stone, or thin sheets of metal. However, I would invest in a paper mill before I invested in a vellum factory. Why? Paper is particularly well suited to use as a medium for physical writing, because of physical properties, tradition, existing infrastructure, etc.

In the same way, gold has physical properties, tradition, etc. working in its favor. Sure, anything can be money, but gold sure does have its overwhelming advantages.

Oh, and the dollar is a good example of why gold is far better at being currency.

Of course this is all debateable and philosophical. People could suddenly say gold is worthless, and I guess it would be. Hell, for that matter, pastoralists could take over society and oil could become anathema and therefore worthless. I just wouldn't bet on it. ;)

[Munger]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

Well, if you want to get technical just about EVERYTHING that isn't food, water, clothing, or shelter only has the value people think it has, and even those are debatable in respect to the specifics (bugs are food, but how valuable when other food sources are available?). We don't really need toasters, or toilet paper, or much of anything else... but they all have a function that gives them value to people in their various roles.

Correct. This is because people use them for doing things. Namely, for making toast and wiping their asses. In other words, these things have inherent utility.

A radio is worthless if you don't listen to the radio, so it has no value?...
but I spent $170 on a nice DX390 years ago. I only THINK it has value I suppose.

It has value to people who listen to the radio or who have the need or desire to get communications to or from distant places. Which is pretty much everyone. In your case, as it is with most technology, you bought a device with rapidly depreciating value.

I'm saying that someone could write on papyrus, vellum, cloth, paper, wood, stone, or thin sheets of metal. However, I would invest in a paper mill before I invested in a vellum factory. Why? Paper is particularly well suited to use as a medium for physical writing, because of physical properties, tradition, existing infrastructure, etc.

Yes. Paper has inherent utility for use as something that many people need or want to do - record their thoughts and/or transmit them to other people.

In the same way, gold has physical properties, tradition, etc. working in its favor. Sure, anything can be money, but gold sure does have its overwhelming advantages.

Overwhelming advantages as currency? It is heavy and difficult to lug around. It is too soft to be structural. It is very hard to extract.

Oh, and the dollar is a good example of why gold is far better at being currency.

Dollars can be denominated in different values so that large quantities can be carried around. They do not require vast amount of human labor to create (which is, I suppose, part of the problem when control of the creation is given solely to unaccountable bankers). Gold on the other hand is hard to extract. It thus resists inflation when used as a currency. It has no inherent utility though - people don't use gold for anything. It sits in vaults or can be exchanged for things that have inherent utility.

Further, it often is argued that the inflationary property of paper money is a good thing. As wages are difficult to negotiate down, a slow inflation causes real wages to decrease to market-efficient equilibrium values. Also, as Keynes pointed out, it sometimes becomes necessary to extract capital from the rentier class to drive demand. While I don't particularly care for my stored wealth being inflated away, I can accept this as sometimes necessary to prevent destabilization. When done negligently the inflation of money can be tragic however, and I do not have a lot of faith in the current overseers.

Again, gold has little inherent utility. You are arguing it has utility as currency. If people don't think it is worth anything, however, this utility vanishes because it isn't a useful thing for people to have sitting around.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

Well Lukester, I thought the names were auto-generated based on the number of posts, comments or a combination thereof.

Having said that I meant no disrespect (read with Italian accent with Francesco Landini playing in the background).

For the record, I think "Mad Scientist" sounds pretty cool; kinda like psycho...but OUR psycho. Someone who is so high in the iTulip ranks that cannot he be messed with, even by Jim, Mega, Metal and the like.

As for me, I got the title "Contributing iTuliper", which I translate as "guy you knows squat, but can still post some decent stuff once in awhile".

I accept this title.

My advice: don't let them see your emotions and fight like a cobra! Yiiiahh.

[Guest]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

For the record, I think "Mad Scientist" sounds pretty cool; kinda like psycho... Someone who is so high in the iTulip ranks that cannot he be messed with, even by Jim, Mega, Metal and the like.

Largowinch - no worries mate. For the record though, I'd dump all that "high up in the iTulip ranks" baloney. Anyone who tried to fob me off with some of that would get a bronx cheer for their efforts. My suggestion is that you regard such (real or imaginary) heirarchies the same way.

[Guest]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

I nominate Lukester for "Chief Doomster" instead of "Mad Scientist". Go, Luke! Yall'be knocking on Lukester's door when TSHTF, seeing as you can't nowhere near afford the air fare to Northern Europe to knock on the door of your CrashGnome. He has his preps in order.

Thanks for your Solidarnosc comments CrashGnome. Hail Mary, and pass me the Aquavit, or Schnapps, or whatever the hell is the high octane stuff you Norwegians consume up there where the sun barely rises half the year. Oh, and stop being such a bleedin' doomer, or we're going to have to send you off for some electroshock therapy and then you'll forget what it was you were supposed to be so worried about. KRAKKE !! :eek:

[Judas]

Re: Oil and Gold Decoupling?

Correct. This is because people use them for doing things... In other words, these things have inherent utility.

... It has value to people who ... need or desire to get communications to or from distant places.

... has inherent utility for use as something that many people need or want to do - record their thoughts and/or transmit them to other people.

If utility is "use as something that many people need or want to do" I would say the need for currency and a store of value is as valid as getting communications from distant places or recording thoughts.

*shrug* You can be right or win or whatever, but I've never understood the idea that currency isn't as essential as anything else in society, or that there are better and worse forms just like there are better and worse forms of distant communications or thought recordings.