Re:Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics
by wpietri on Sunday December 29, 2013 @12:29PM
(#6980320)
People have been making and wearing gold jewelry for thousands of years despite wide fluctuation in price. Gold doesn't tarnish and is easy to work, so it is uniquely suited for jewelry. (That also gives it a lot of industrial applications, which set another price floor.)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics
by aestra on Sunday December 29, 2013 @01:05PM
(#6980483)
My original post was somewhat negative (as I have a personal issue with the jewelry industry) however
Gold originally was the only metal colored like that (shiny) so it stood out, coupled with its scarcity it became a status symbol. It was the stuff of royality. It has some properties that make it useful in jewelry but pure gold is actually too soft for jewelry and is used mostly as alloys.
I am not saying gold (like other metals) doesn’t have its industrial applications, it does!
You can not convince me however that gold is inherently a better metal for jewelry than alternatives. It is only there to give jewelry that golden shine, which has been considered a status symbol. Now, if gold somehow became a "cheap" metal I don't think people would be keen on displays of their gold.