• bedwyr@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    Well keep in mind gold mining is incredibly destructive, poisoning the land. The illegal mining uses a lot of mercury, the large gold mines harvest ores whereby they use cyanide or something to seperate the gold, and in the process free a bunch of arsenic and such.

    Silver is better I think. Also though, gold is way overpriced it would appear, 3,000 some dollars an ounce, it was less than 100 in 2001.

    The traditional value of gold is one for every 15 silver, if the ratio is off, you aren’t getting great value.

    But what could be the best, would be metals like platinum and pallidium, which have actual uses as catalysts in chemical processes.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      The traditional value of gold is one for every 15 silver, if the ratio is off, you aren’t getting great value.

      The traditional value of buggy whips was stable until there was no longer any demand for them.

      The value of gold in Spain in the 16th century went down the shitter and there was hyperinflation of gold-based currency, because of the flood of gold looted from the Americas.

      Traditional ratios are meaningless rules of thumb with no basis in fact.

      There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

      • bedwyr@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I disagree and think those ratios do exist, and when they are off it shows a problem brewing in the economy. It is way the fuck off now, and shit is about to crash in case you didn’t realize that.

        But regardless, gold sucks, silver better, as gold is overvalued now.