mmissinglink said:
Unfortunately, your analogy fails in the most important way. The notes (or the digits that represent the notes) that you decry are the very notes that actually have a tremendous amount of utility for most people in the world today. People pay their grocery bills with them. People pay for their petro (gasoline) with them. People pay for their clothing and their utilities and their phone bill with them. People use this currency to take a taxi to the airport or take the bus to visit their brother across town. People pay for gifts for loved ones and pay for football game tickets with them. People pay parking and road violations with them. People pay other people to work for them with these very notes. People pay for a new keyboard to type messages on the internet with them. PEOPLE PAY THEIR TAXES WITH THEM.
Virtually nowhere in the world today does the utility of currencies like these notes have any competition....certainly not from gold in any meaningful way.
I believe that's what Buffet meant by "It (gold) has no utility".
Gold, in practical terms today IS NOT MONEY.
I'll leave the debate on whether gold is money aside for the moment, and come back to the analogy which you suggest is flawed.
I will run both examples now and reword them to explain better how I interpreted them, and arrived at the analogy I came to.
I will also state at the outset that I believe fiat currency has no intrinsic value in and of itself other than the decree that it does by those that govern us. If you fundamentally do not agree with this, then, yes, the analogy will be flawed. I would also love to see your argument on why a piece of paper with green ink on it has intrinsic value. Also at the outset, I will say that I believe that gold has an intrinsic value, bought about by desirability, and scarcity. If you fundamentally do not agree with this (please note I have NOT said whether I believe it is over or under valued at present), then again, the analogy will appear to be flawed. You don't, by the way, have to agree that it's a currency (you said money, I know, but it IS money, whereas it's not a recognised currency in wide circulation today, and on that I will sadly, but wholeheartedly agree).
In the original example, man digs up gold, refines and purifies it, and then buries it again for safe keeping. Without the understanding that gold has an intrinsic value, those looking upon this exercise from the outside looking in would think it a most foolish waste of time, effort and resources - after all, why dig something up, heat it up, then bury it again?
In my analogy, I ask why we would go into a forest, cut down a tree, pick some cotton from a field, process all that, print numbers on it, then spend a large majrity of time doing something many of us don't want to do (working) for these pieces of paper (that have no value beyond decree, and are in fact easily duplicated - something that gold is not). In actual reality, we don't really want these pieces of paper, we want what we can swap them for. To those looking at this process from the outside looking in, it would seem equally absurd to put all this effort and resources into producing easily reproducable pieces of paper for which we then spend so much time working, when we don't really want the pieces of paper at all. Draw your own further conclusions from the fact that in the time I've spent typing this post (which was not a waste of time, I'm not trying to imply that!), if I were using a different computer system, I'd by now be the world's wealthiest (but potentially most wanted!) person... again, for which we spend a large part of our lives working.
In this analogy, I'm really nudging the reader to the realisation of how absurdly preposterous our current financial system is... all "money" (it's actually currency) is so easily producable, on demand, that the powers that be really know no limit - they can do exacly as they please, creating money whenever it suits them, and in whatever amount suits them. And for this, they have the "enslavement" of every working person on earth. Remeber, we're talking about something they can conjure on demand, with no practical limit.
How absurdly preposterous!
I've got a better idea. Elect me, and I'll declare something else that "only I" can create as money. I promise you'll be better off!