Those who can't see the value of gold as a currency, though it has been used as such for 6000 years, inevitably resort to the argument that gold has no intrinsic use value. In this argument they owe a tremendous debt to Karl Marx who actually invented the concept.
To Marx everything had a use value and/or a fetish value. To those who just can't accept gold as an "investment" it is because they see no use value. To them it has only fetish value, or what they will call fiat value.
What these same critics fail to understand is that the same argument can be made for anything and everything other than prayer.
Housing? Well, people existed for thousands of years in caves and forests, huts and tents. Sure a hut or a tent could be considered a "house." But is there any real use value in a modern house? Is the house dweller any happier than a desert nomad? Of course there is no answer to that question. But consider this: 99 percent of drug abusers live in houses.
Food? Does any amount of food above subsistence level have a use value? Of course not. Unless you think that being fat makes you happy. Okay, some people who eat above subsistence level aren't fat. But not many. And besides there are saints in India who never eat. You don't believe it? That only proves you're a slave to food fetish.
Art? Does art really have a use value? Does it make life worth living? Does it fill you with wonder and awe at the ineffable brilliance of creation? Or does that simply mean you're entirely incapable of appreciating that value of this moment. Is there any use in art to those who can not appreciate this moment? Is there any use to those who can?
Again, there's no answer to these questions. Just as there is no answer to those who can see no use in gold.
But there has been art for 6000 years. People have been eating for 6000 years (at least). And gold has been currency for 6000 years.
How about
No comments:
Post a Comment