#132198
Anonym

Angus

Jeg har lige et par eksempler nedenfor – når det er sagt er det en artiklen et godt grin.

Jeg har et lille klip her. Den sammenligning de laver med bøfferne er jo ikke anderledes end for guldet. Har man mere guld vil det flytte udbudskurven marginalt og guldet vil falde marginalt i værdi – og det uanset om man måler værdien af guld i kroner, bananer, tønder olie eller glanspapir.

——
Fra artiklen
Gold has a “constant marginal utility.”

Okay, so there is some economist-jargon. No big deal. “Constant marginal utility” means simply that each additional unit of gold owned or acquired by an individual, business, or government, is worth the exact same amount to that entity as the previous one.

With other commodities, this isn’t so. Think about frozen T-bone steaks. Once you have a year’s supply (or whatever amount) stored up, i.e., once you are “satisfied” that you have “enough”, each additional (marginal) steak you procure is of less and less USE (utility) to you.

In economist’s terms, that means steaks have a “declining marginal utility.”

With gold it’s different. It is so tradeable, so easily storable, it keeps its value so well, is souniversally acceptable, and is therefore so useful to people, that each additional unit is of no less use than the previous one

——

Så vidt jeg forstår er bullion synomym med guld. 1 bullion/guld vil da ikke være konstant lig med X,X tønde olie eller X,X bøffer over tid. Værdien vil da stige og falde i takt med udbuddet og efterspørgsel på olie og bøffer. Det er selvfølgelig klart at 1 guld er lig med 1 guld over tid – men hvad kan vi bruge det til.

——
And the value of the bullion is very stable over time.
———-