Hi doma,
I think I have given you my reasons for disagreeing with you. My reasons make sense to me. Yours make me think of primitive people who happened upon a rare object and found it fit well with their needs for a currency, until they discovered its deficiencies. Other folks sought value in cowry shells and wampum and for different reasons, these turned out not to work so well. The use of gold as a currency adhered to the kind of laws they didn't know but we have come to understand as being about scarcity value.
As regards folks being subject to programming, I am not so sure that your argument is the one with greater depth here. As a historical proposition, you have failed to acknowledge the real issue of gold as a currency, which is that it is easy to mix with inferior metals. It failed repeatedly because of this, all the way back to Diocletian's Price Edict. And as a matter of economics, you have failed to explain why gold is any more useful than bottles of petrol, say, which are also a scarce resource in most parts of the world and actually have the benefit of being useful sources of energy - which is the basic ingredient of all civilisations. The point being that value adheres to scarce resources of any type, and currency is simply the medium which expresses the value of all sorts of scarce things exchanged within an economy. Currency makes barter interoperable.
I understand you wish to believe what you do. But your proposition doesn't seem to have an answer to these questions. Therefore it seems to me that yours is the programmed assertion and the people you identify as being programmed - namely people like me and dig - are actually the folks with an opinion founded upon reason and evidence. 
By the way, no one has said the value of gold is false. Just that it is one scarce resource among many. And that it represents a better store of value than an exchangeable currency.
| 