Re: (OPE-L) Re: recent references on 'problem' of money commodity?

From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 09:39:27 EST

Thanks Gerry,

there must be some funny delays on my server.. as for gold, send me some anytime.!!!!.. well I see your point, but I was allowing for some dramatic effect in the case of imperialisr states... but it is certainly true for the Indian peasant... still   wherte personal wealth still requires the form of golden money renfdered as tons of jewelry....there is also a flourishing 'second' hand gold market in the form of trinkets, coins with pawnbrokers etc in all middle/poor areas of the world... which might tell us something. I any case you are pointing to the admin arrangements which sustain fiduciary issue  and 'force its course'... so what you say is to be expected ( although  since contracts for houses are cleared  via solicitors (lawyers) here I'm sure they wouldn't worry.. the bank would accept the gold .. and that is the point, if  banks  get 'picky' let me know and I'll think about why!!!!!)) By the way have you heard story that Kennedy 'got it' because he was planning to release the silver which would challenge gold's position? 



----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:02 PM
  Subject: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Re: recent references on 'problem' of money commodity?

  Yes, Paul B, the message you sent on Sunday replying
  to Rakesh was posted at that time.

  Some time ago (on November 19) you wrote:

  As a matter of fact Fred, I know of no one who would not be prepared to accept a certain quantity of gold for any of their property , ( should they wish to sell it, even if they later had to exchange it for paper for  other reasons), that is to say that this commodity remains the money commodity, par excellence..  <<<

  Interesting, since I know of no one  (save, possibly, Claus, Akira, or  
  yourself) who would be prepared to accept a certain quantity of gold in
  exchange for their property.  I know that if I wanted to sell property
  like a house (which I don't own) or a boat (which I do) I wouldn't
  accept gold as payment.  To begin with, I would have no confidence that
  it was real or that it was 'pure'.  I certainly wouldn't want to pay
  the extra expense and put up with a delay to hire an appraiser.
  Also, I would feel very uncomfortable accepting gold from a security
  perspective (I'd much rather receive a bank check).  And then I'd have the 
  hassle and delay of selling the gold.  And -- given the frequent fluctuations 
  in the price of gold (yes, gold _does_ have a price) -- I would feel 
  uncomfortable holding on to the gold since I am not interested in gold 
  speculation. And -- more to the point -- I know of no one in my 
  community who would accept gold as payment for property of any 
  significant worth.  If someone went to my landlord's office and proposed
  to pay for real estate in gold, s/he would get laughed out of the office.

  In solidarity, Jerry

  PS: thanks about the reference to "course."  I guess it's another
  instance of how language has changed since Marx's time.  Martha,
  Fred, and you have each in your own ways helped to solve
  the "mystery."

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 00:00:02 EST