Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« POPE 5 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Trump Nominates Chris Waller, Judy Shelton To Fill Fed Vacancies

By: Decomposed in POPE 5 | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 17 Jan 20 8:46 PM | 35 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Pope 5 		Msg. 49243 of 62138
(This msg. is a reply to 49234 by micro)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

micro:

Re: "Palladium and Platinum both would be as good as or better than gold. They cost more than gold."First, palladium and platinum do not cost more than gold. Palladium does. Platinum does not. Second, it isn't the value of the backing material that matters so much as the stability of the demand for it. Palladium - which was $600/oz a decade ago but over $2,000/oz today -would be a terrible backing material. That's because the reason it skyrocketed is because of its increased use in catalytic converters. A nation does not want the value of its money soaring or crashing as the demand for catalytic converters changes. It wants its money to be STABLE, and that means not dependent on industrial or consumer demand for a product.

Below, I've posted a photo showing gold, silver, platinum and palladium coins. There's only one metal in the photo that most people will readily identify. Gold is not only uniquely colored, but also soft enough and unusully heavy so as to give an assurance that it really is what it looks like. The others look and behave (to non scientists) pretty much the same. That's a quality you don't want in your backing material.

The cost of the backing material really doesn't matter unless it is very cheap (i.e. silver), in which case you can be sure it's silver because nobody would sell a more expensive metal for just $20/oz. (I might be wrong here. Nickel is cheaper than silver, I presume, and it's another white metal.) If higher cost materials made them better for currency backing then we'd probably want rhodium... which is around $7,000/oz. But guess what? Rhodium is another metal that looks just about the same as silver, palladium and platinum. Folks would be very unhappy if they exchanged $7,000 of apples for an ounce of rhodium only to find that some shyster had given them an ounce of $20 silver instead. For this reason, and others, rhodium is not a great choice.

Now, I'll grant that it would be stupid to casually assume any of these metals, even gold, are what they claim to be without doing a little verifying, but I expect I've made my point. The ability to be recognized... which is to say its trustworthiness... is a desirable quality in a money-backing material.




Avatar

Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Trump Nominates Chris Waller, Judy Shelton To Fill Fed Vacancies
By: micro in POPE 5
Fri, 17 Jan 20 6:09 PM 		Msg. 49234 of 62138

Decomp

Palladium and Platinum both would be as good as or better than gold. They cost more than gold. They are better materials for wedding bands because they are HARDER and resist oxidation better than gold. Platinum is more valuable than Palladium and both are more valuable than gold.

I am getting a new wedding band to replace my white gold one. It will be Palladium. Whiter, brighter, harder, rarer. A solid good precious metal, metals, that could be used in conjunction with Gold or separate and apart. Accomplishes same thing...

BUT we need to have an independent accounting of the reserves backing the isued currency. That is NOT anyone in the government... Just my thought....

« POPE 5 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next