Re: [A-List] US Imperialism: Gold Rising

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/24/02 7:25:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx writes:

> Imagine if the three wise men arrived in Bethlehem bearing frankincense,
> myrrh, and a promisory note signed by King Herod. Joseph would send them
> packing.
>
> But that is exactly what would have happened if City analysts had anything
> to do with it. How else can we explain their 1990s fashion for dismissing
> gold as a "barbarous metal", which, just like any other commodity, would
> supposedly fall endlessly in value as production got cheaper? Much better to
> rely on sophisticated paper currencies, we were told.
>
> Well, those predictions have now been proved resoundingly wrong. Last week
> the price of gold went over $350 an ounce, the highest level for six years.
> The return of gold as a store of value provides a classic lesson in markets.
> It shows they are cyclical and informed as much by human nature as by the
> spreadsheets of economists.


Comment

"the price of gold went over $350 an ounce . . .  The return of gold as a store of value,"  makes me cringe and confirm my dislike for bourgeois economic writers, who are no more than salesmen of commodities. In this case the commodity is gold.  

I possess no specialized knowledge in anything - but once thought I had figured out girls only to be repeatedly proven wrong. I do have a basic approach to the standpoint of Marx and did happen to real Henry C.K. Liu's article on why the price of gold is moving up. 

I did send a reply to Henry and asked for six more months to study his article along with the series on the history of banking. It does not take six months to unravel what is silly in the article above. 

Price is not value. Value is the amount of socially necessary labor that goes into the production of anything (commodities).  And gold is no exception. What the author "forgets" about the price of gold is its availability to the various institutions who agree to surrender the commodity on demand. The amount of gold available for distribution must take into account the state of the current production of gold and its projected future availability. 

Now gold is mined with an evolving technology that reduced the amount of human labor used in the process of production. It's value deals with the amount of human labor involved in its production and the price is based on a historical configuration, politics and above all availability and future availability, for those who invest in gold and have rights to demand possession of the product.  Thus, price is absolutely tied to demand or availability, and this included locating new "finds" for gold production. 

Value is not price or tied to demand like price. Value is governed by the technology that in turn govern what is required to produce a certain amount of gold today versus yesterday. 

The upward move in the price of gold can take place alongside a downward move in the value of gold based on demand and availability. 

Henry does give a general history of the price of gold since the Nixon years and the creation of the petrol-dollar and maintains that gold will not hit its historic highs. Henry speaks of the price of gold and alludes to the value of gold only in the sense of what is available to central banks and investments institutions and through availability, what is in production as it relates to future demands on the part of investors and consumers of gold trinkets. 

Hey, I still need six more months to figure all of what I read. 

Price is not value and a "store of value" for the bourgeois economist means "the holder/containment of price." 


Christmas Day and I have to go to work and deal Black Jack for the people. 

Now my girls - 4 and 2 grandchildren had their damn Christmas. Two of the oldest wanted to now why one of them had 3 packages instead of the 2 that everyone else got. I ignored them and the wife says, "baby you really don't understand girls." 

I say "fu8k this shit and I am tied of everybody trying to measure everything and base it on themselves." 

The wife says, "you are truly clueless and understand nothing about women and you and your so-called "Women Question ain't shit." 

I call a quick meeting with all the girls and says, "Look, Ebony is size 8 and her clothes could fit into 2 packages. Shamelle is size 10 and her clothes could fit in two packages - boxes gift wrapped. Angel is size 4 and her stuff could fit into one large box. The Grandkids - Tapre and Tekala, stuff could fit in one box cause they are 5 years old and eight. Mikki's goddamn clothes cannot fit into two boxes so I had to run out and get a third box. " 

Everyone laughed except Mikki, which means I am once again in the doghouse. 

I hate Christmas. 

Melvin P