Does the price of gold rise with ignorance?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

People continually confuse the Great Depression with modern recessions. Modern recessions happen today rather than the depressions largely because the bank deposits of the people are insured by the United States government for up to the first $100,000.

The Great Depression happened not because people were in poverty but because of Social Darwinism, the economic philosophy practiced during that time, which kept the people in perpetual poverty. While the Federal government had robbed "The People" of land and wealth earlier during the Industrial Revolution to give it to the Robber Barons in exchange for the creation of industry, it was decided later on when "The People" themselves needed assistance that, according to Darwin and the theory that only the strongest (richest) survive, this time the Federal government should not interefere with the economy by allowing the weakest (poorest) to perish. Nevermind that this was based on a false premise of Darwin's work that only the strong survive. As Darwin himself point out, sometimes the weakest creature is the most fit to survive an environmental calamity (an example of this would have been the little mammals that survived the calamity that happened 60 million years ago while the stronger dinosaurs perished).

Today's investment in gold is based more on ignorance of this history than on good economic sense. While it would have been wise to invest in gold prior to the Great Depression, which would have served to maintain the value of ones wealth, investing in gold today is foolish.

[Truth Warrior]

Short term, yes.<IMHO> Greater fool theory in action.

Bernanke: Federal Reserve
caused Great Depression
Fed chief says, 'We did it. …
very sorry, won't do it again'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59405 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59405)

[acptulsa]

I believe the results of Tuesday's election combined with the current c.-$750 price deflates that theory.

And I believe that if this credit crunch ever does loosen, goldbugs will have the last laugh.

Money is a means of exchange. Gold is susceptible to the whims of the marketplace, but that (imo) is better than subjecting yourself to the whims of a Bernanke...

[Pennsylvania]

Nevermind that this was based on a false premise of Darwin's work that only the strong survive. As Darwin himself point out, sometimes the weakest creature is the most fit to survive an environmental calamity (an example of this would have been the little mammals that survived the calamity that happened 60 million years ago while the stronger dinosaurs perished).


Do you have a source for Darwin claiming that "strongest" meant something other than"most fit for survival"? It seems that the mammals, though not physically stronger, were "stronger" in terms of better biological/ecological strategy. Surely Darwin would have agreed here.

[acptulsa]

Usually Darwin's theory is called 'survival of the fittest'. And in my opinion, many of the robber barons used it to pat each other on the back during their period of the grossest excesses, and a great many sealed their own doom in the process (though you certainly didn't learn their names in school). Arrogance isn't a survival mechanism, apparently...

[Truth Warrior]

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Do you have a source for Darwin claiming that "strongest" meant something other than"most fit for survival"? It seems that the mammals, though not physically stronger, were "stronger" in terms of better biological/ecological strategy. Surely Darwin would have agreed here.

Darwin always understood fittest to mean any creature, whether strong or weak, with the best chances of surviving an environmental calamity. The little mammals lived in holes in the ground which helped shield them from what has been theorized to have been a blast and fall out from a meteor.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I believe the results of Tuesday's election combined with the current c.-$750 price deflates that theory.

And I believe that if this credit crunch ever does loosen, goldbugs will have the last laugh.

Money is a means of exchange. Gold is susceptible to the whims of the marketplace, but that (imo) is better than subjecting yourself to the whims of a Bernanke...

While ecomonics is like a game of musical chairs, the Federal government never felt burdened during the Great Depression with turning the music back on. The Federal government always turns the music back on nowadays by stirring up wealth in some capacity. So, when does one cash in their gold? Right after a calamity but before the government stimulates the economy again? I'd rather be with the rest of my fellow American's eating wheat grass, wild pecans and fried grasshoppers.

[dannno]

There's nothing wrong with having some money stored in an insured account, it may even go up in value if there is deflation.

What is more likely is that the dollar will eventually be destroyed, and countries holding onto billions of dollars to use for trading purposes will move to another currency and dump their dollars on our market.

At that point, the money in your insured account will be worthless due to hyperinflation, and my gold will be worth a lot.

[NolanLawson]

Actually, Darwin's theory was about organisms adapted to their particular NICHE surviving - not about the "most perfect" organisms overall surviving. So mammals aren't in any way more "fit" or "better" than other organisms; each organism is suited for its own way of life. Panda bears are slow and stupid, but they're perfectly adapted to munching on bamboo shoots all day, so they don't have to be perfect. Also, arthropods must outnumber mammals at least 1000-to-1 these days, so it's pretty conceited to assume we're the most successful of Earth's species. A good book to read on this to get the real scoop on evolution and break past all the baloney they teach in school is Stephen J. Gould's "Wonderful Life" - it's really an awesome read, highly recommended. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=SjpSkzjIzfsC&dq=stephen+gould+wonderful+life&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=2YvlTL7rFL&sig=VLoChxR8W-awWJMC8u2yAWpT2Xg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Anyway, about the Great Depression: the whole story they want us to believe about free-market policies causing the Depression is hogwash. The Federal government DID interfere during the Great Depression - both Hoover and Roosevelt were big-government economic interventionists who engaged in price-fixing, minimum wage laws, and public works programs that turned what would have been a 1-year recession into a 13-year depression. And the Fed, as we all know, caused it in the first place. Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" is a great book on this. http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf