Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What do you mean? Perhaps you’re looking at the change (inevitably decrease) in the value of fiat currencies, not the change in the purchasing power of an ounce of gold.

The purchasing power of an ounce of gold in terms of real goods that can be obtained is remarkably consistent over human history, taking into account productivity increases which make everything actually easier to produce (rather than making gold or fiat currencies more “valuable”).

This is a characteristic of gold in particular (above all other commodities), due to a number of factors related to its density/portability, longevity, malleability, and the consistent rate over history at which it’s been extractable from the earth. It’s a rather peculiar if not spectacular equilibrium.

It’s a nice benefit that it’s also rather pretty, and interesting to consider to what degree that matters.



I mean, if you look at history, the perceived value of a lump of gold has changed a lot over time. Even if you assume that recent price differences are due to wild swings in the value of currency (apparently a dollar was worth twice as much in 2000 as in 1990), the claim that the value of gold has been consistent over millennia is just not true.

The way I know this was because of the giant laugh that my historian wife gave when I showed her your comment.


I think you’d be hard pressed to find anything else in human history with a 10-year or 100-year average value as stable as gold.

Do the exercise in terms of housing/lodging, loaves of bread, nice attire, annual median wages, etc…


Sure. "Gold has been an expensive commodity for a very large amount of human history, and few commodities have this property" and "has held consistent value for millennia" are very different claims.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: