by Jeff Nielson, Bullion Bulls:
It continues to amaze me that there are still some intelligent people who trust-and-believe the work of notorious Disinformation Shill, Jim Rickards. Well, hopefully his latest anti-gold nonsense will put an end to this — forever.
Check this out: Rickards states: “Gold has no real use except as money”- with which we concur here. But he goes on…
Gold is the ultimate FIAT money. It has value because we believe it has value. But it is suited to have value because it is unused in industry and as a monetary unit its supply growth is very predictable. What could change that?
What a clown! This is like saying that “medicine has no use, except to cure people of diseases.”
Curing people of diseases is important. Money (real money, not currency) is important. How important? Why don’t we let Alan Greenspan tell us (again) what happens when we don’t have real money.
Protecting our wealth from “confiscation” (i.e. theft) from Rickards’ friends, the bankers, is a pretty important function. Has Jim Rickards never heard of Alan Greenspan? Has Jim Rickards never heard of “the gold standard”?
We know that Rickards has heard of the gold standard, because he has claimed to write about it as an expert (lol). Thus we can only conclude that Rickards’ latest gold-bashing is pure malevolence, and not simple ignorance.
Now let me dissect the rest of Rickards’ nonsensical musings about gold.
This isn’t simply wrong, it’s infantile. Why do people wear gold chains, and gold rings, and gold necklaces, and gold bracelets? Why do these chains, rings, necklaces, and bracelets always have value? Because gold is a shiny, beautiful, metal — and aesthetic appeal is a tangible property.
Someone selling a bouquet of roses will always get a higher price than someone selling a bouquet of weeds. Why? Because the roses have aesthetic value, and the weeds don’t.
Contrast this with our worthless fiat currencies. Despite the efforts of our governments to dress-up their paper with ever more elaborate inks, their paper currencies have NO AESTHETIC VALUE. They are only accepted as a medium of exchange because of government decree (coercion). We’re forced to treat the paper as if it did actually have value.
Gold is the bouquet of roses. Fiat currencies are the bouquet of weeds. If we were to take Rickards’ bullshit seriously, we’re supposed to believe that Rickards himself doesn’t understand this distinction.
Then we have this:
Note the “hypothetical” example created by Rickards (highlighted in bold-face):
If gold was used industrially and irrevocably, it would gain value.
What Rickards just described is SILVER. Silver is used industrially and irrevocably. Yet Rickards’ friends, the bankers, tell us every day of our lives that silver is worthLESS because it is “an industrial metal.”
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.