The Christmas War (continued from ..low-key invasion)

As for taxing them gold. Gold is worthless, why would they want gold?

Tell it to all the central banks holding gold

Outside of a handful of industrial or tech uses there is no value to gold.

Did you forgot that gold in currency not only for the Belt and for Mars, so the UW would have something else besides Continentals-fiat toilet paper and could make a shopping spree to import whatever they lack on earth.

Ceres industrial and mining base will be come handy for the UW also.

Right here's something that will shock you.
Gold only has value because you THINK it has value. You think it has value because you have been TOLD it has value. Remove that and it has minimal if any value.

You can not eat it. You can not make basic tools with it. You can not make shelter or clothing with it. Outside of some very very specific uses it has no use. Ergo its value is low.

The value of gold is very similar to that of fiat currency in that it only has great value because people say it does.

The value of gold is very similar to that of fiat currency in that it only has great value because people say it does.

The value of gold reside in the fact that it is a very handy to be used as a currency, since it is rare, can't be produced at toilet paper rate like fiat paper, it doesn't rust nor lose quality over time.

Sure in a free market something else can be used has a currency, but I don't see people using bottle of oil has currency so soon ... nor Cows or horse like in the past.

Back to Ceres after this breaf Reality Check gently provided by an Evil Oil Company employee :

Earth is running on low funds, this is why they sent guy to Ceres and this is why Robbyn and Co were used for forced labour on the moon ... maybe for the last one.

Holt and Co said that the whole arc made sense since the UW could just exploit the vast riches of the Belt ... but the point is that Ceres is already producing a lot of wealth just waiting to be harvested.

Once Ceres conquered the UW could exact in kind tribute or tax them for gold, which they could use to make purchase in Mars and the around the Belt.

Right here's something that will shock you.
Gold only has value because you THINK it has value. You think it has value because you have been TOLD it has value. Remove that and it has minimal if any value.

The value of gold is very similar to that of fiat currency in that it only has great value because people say it does.

All value is subjective.  Anything has value because someone thinks it has value, even food, shelter and clothing.  The "value" of using gold for money (or any decent commodity) includes durabillity, fungibility, and a few other aspects, aspects that fiat currencies do not share.  Also, a commodity like gold puts a severe limit on inflation.

All value is subjective.  Anything has value because someone thinks it has value, even food, shelter and clothing.  The "value" of using gold for money (or any decent commodity) includes durabillity, fungibility, and a few other aspects, aspects that fiat currencies do not share.  Also, a commodity like gold puts a severe limit on inflation.

Nay food, shelter and clothing have value. They have a high need value. You need to eat to live. A use value as old Marx put it.

Gold doesn't have this. You're thinking in terms of money and economy. I'm thinking of terms of "What does a human need to live?"

All value is subjective.  Anything has value because someone thinks it has value, even food, shelter and clothing.  The "value" of using gold for money (or any decent commodity) includes durabillity, fungibility, and a few other aspects, aspects that fiat currencies do not share.  Also, a commodity like gold puts a severe limit on inflation.

Nay food, shelter and clothing have value. They have a high need value. You need to eat to live. A use value as old Marx put it.

Gold doesn't have this. You're thinking in terms of money and economy. I'm thinking of terms of "What does a human need to live?"

Right.  You certainly have good reasons to think that food has value, but the fact remains that food only has value because you think it does.  Likewise, there are good reasons for preferring a commodity like gold over fiat currencies as money.

Nay food, shelter and clothing have value. They have a high need value. You need to eat to live. A use value as old Marx put it.

Gold doesn't have this. You're thinking in terms of money and economy. I'm thinking of terms of "What does a human need to live?"

Right.  You certainly have good reasons to think that food has value, but the fact remains that food only has value because you think it does.  Likewise, there are good reasons for preferring a commodity like gold over fiat currencies as money.

Then by all means. Go without it. The world will be better for it.

Nay food, shelter and clothing have value. They have a high need value. You need to eat to live. A use value as old Marx put it.

Gold doesn't have this. You're thinking in terms of money and economy. I'm thinking of terms of "What does a human need to live?"

Right.  You certainly have good reasons to think that food has value, but the fact remains that food only has value because you think it does.  Likewise, there are good reasons for preferring a commodity like gold over fiat currencies as money.

Then by all means. Go without it. The world will be better for it.

You're really getting to be absurd, if you weren't already.  Of course I value food--but once again, food only has value to me because I think it does, and I have good reasons for thinking that it has value.  Those reasons don't in itself give it value, they simply provide us with reasons for thinking it has value.

If that's not enough for you, then why do you think that surviving is important?  Don't make some smart-ass remark about whether or not I value survival--I wouldn't be here to comment if I didn't.  But what do you see is the value of life?  This really supercedes economics and goes into metaphysics, I think, but the subjectivity of it should be apparent, even to you.

Pretend you are hungry, and you have no food, only plywood, lumber and nails. It has no value to you, you can't eat it.

Pretend you are building a house and you have no plywood, lumber or nails, all you have is a pile of food. It has no value to you, you can't make a house out of cornflakes.

Two specific and rather odd situations to be sure. but both valid. Lumber and cornflakes are not intercghangable. What you need is something that is interchangable for both.

We Humans have chosen gold among other things. While it would make lousy nails and has no nutritional value it can not only be exchanged for either, it can even let them be exchanged for each other. It can because we say it can.

Good enough for me.
 

The value of Food ,Water and air is not determined solely by its importance to life, but also by its scarcity.

Thus for most of us a loaf of bread requires  the work of ten minutes or an hour , (depends on circumstances) water is pretty cheap and air is free, even though this is a reversal of the order of value based on how urgently you need the stuff. If it is easy to get it is thereby cheap.

Most of us work for days or months for a few scraps of noble metal even though we could actually live a full lifespan in its dearth.

That gold can pack a lot of working credit into a small package makes it usefull, for buying that bread.

I wonder what a months subscription to an air delivery service costs on Ceries?

Nay food, shelter and clothing have value. They have a high need value. You need to eat to live. A use value as old Marx put it.

Gold doesn't have this. You're thinking in terms of money and economy. I'm thinking of terms of "What does a human need to live?"

Right.  You certainly have good reasons to think that food has value, but the fact remains that food only has value because you think it does.  Likewise, there are good reasons for preferring a commodity like gold over fiat currencies as money.

How much value does a pork chop have to a hungry Chinese? How much to a hungry, devout Muslim? Let's say I forget my wallet, and so have no lunch money when I am out. If I am offered a choice between a T-bone (which I love) or a Krugerrand, which one do you think I will take? I'd bet dollars to donuts, that everyone on this Forum--including Holt--would make the same choice. I'll take the Krugerrand and coast until I get home for dinner. macsnafu is right, value is always subjective. Read von Mises if you need a clue.

Reggies signature might be quite valuable , to an interloping force.

The Cherokee cheifs were mostly against signing away their lands in Georgia and the Carolinas , but when one cheif was willing to sign , the Govener of Georgia and the President of the US accepted it as a treaty for all.

Yes this cheif was killed later and the Cherokee won their case in the US Supreme court , but by then they had been moved and the Executives involved were satisfied with the Faint accompli.

Giving up their guns?  This is unexpected.  I hope an explanation of why the men are doing this explains their motivation.

Probably a display of trust, meeting with empty hands on even terms.

Probably?

What if the BGs try to grab Reggie and get Guy instead, hmm.

Holt, the answer to "what do we need to live" is not merely the basics of food and shelter.

There's a saying "give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a day."

People need capital - a fishing rod; a place to fish; or perhaps farming equipment and a place to farm, seed, yadda yadda.

People rarely are able to grow and make everything that they need, from food to water to shelter to nails to housing to wool, needles, a loom, butter churns, and so forth and so on. In short, people need to trade.

We could just barter - but that is not easy when you produce "farm wagons" or "rifles" and people have limited need for those particular products - how do you continue to acquire groceries when all the farmers in your neighborhood are satisfied with their capital good stocks?

Enter "money", which can be defined as "the most tradable good." Many things have served as money - tobacco leaves, shells, iron, copper, silver, gold, sacks of wheat, barrels of oil. Some of these are not durable (wheat, oil). Some are not easily divisible ( diamonds, or Picasso paintings, for example ). Some are not scarce enough ( faith-based printed money, for instance ).

Gold and silver have held up well for thousands of years because they are durable, scarce, valued, divisible, portable, uniform, and identifiable. If you've ever held gold and silver coins in your hand, you'd recognize instantly that today's coins are cheap junk. Gold in particular is one of the densest metals known.

The main advantage of precious metals ( gold, silver, platinum, etc ) is that they can't be created out of paper and ink. Have a look at this image:
That Zimbabwe $100 trillion note is worth about as much as one egg nowadays.

Carlos is thinking. That makes this arc much better.