17 Nov
2009
17 Nov
'09
11:31 p.m.
On Nov 17, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Seth Morabito wrote:
Alright, I will concede that gold is a useful metal, but I stand firm
in that its price is not _primarily_ tied to its usefulness to
industry or science. And I think my larger point is still quite valid.
If another example is needed, I'll simply state a name that should be
familiar to fans and critics of modern art alike: Jackson Pollock. His
1948 painting "No. 5" sold for $140,000,000.00 in 2006. I can't judge
its aesthetics, but that is certainly more than I can possibly imagine
it is worth inherently. Yet someone was willing to pay it, so that's
its value -- with the caveat, of course, that tomorrow it may be worth
half as much, or twice as much, depending on what the market demands.
The same goes for anything, Apple I's included.
-Seth
Why is an ounce of gold worth $1000? Because
that's what people
will pay
for it. It has no inherent use; you can't eat it, you can't live in
it,
you can't keep warm with it. But someone will give you $800 for it
and
come away feeling like they've got a great bargain indeed.
Bad example. Gold is quite useful, inherently.