wood for sheep?

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    198
    ·
    10 months ago

    This isn’t actually true. In the US, housing has outpaced the value of gold.

    In 2023, you would need 254.7 ounces of gold to buy a house, since $495,100 avg home / $1,943 price of gold = 254.7

    In 1920, you would need 164.1 ounces of gold to buy a house, since $3,395 avg home / $20.67 price of gold = 164.1.

        • gimsy@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          The same can be said for banknotes, they are quite useless as paper, they are mostly valuable because people see them as valuable and perceptions can change

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Right, which is why using gold for a currency replacement is folly. They’re both valued based on something other than their real world applications, so if you trust one to stay relevant, you should probably trust the second as well.

        • droans@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yes and no.

          Gold has been used as a currency historically for many reasons. It’s inert. It has a low melting point. It’s malleable and easily divisible. It doesn’t tarnish. A piece of gold from 2,000 years ago will be the same weight today as it was then. It also is attractive, which gives it value for jewelry. And, importantly, it’s predictably rare and can be mined.

          Today, it’s also valuable for electronics. Its inability to tarnish makes it fantastic if you need a connection to be corrosion resistant.

          There’s a reason gold still holds its value even though it’s not used for currency anymore.

          • CucumberFetish@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Gold’s value isn’t tied to its usefulness. Based on statista, less than 7% of global gold use is for “technology”. The rest of it goes to jewellery, investments and banks.

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The quantity you need for gold to be as useful as it’s going to be in whatever application short of aesthetic/monetary value is so low that it just doesn’t make sense for its value to be tied to its actual use. So little gold is used for “real” applications that if that was driving its valuation , it’d be probably 10% as valuable as it is. That’s what people mean when they say it isn’t useful.

        • Johanno@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          If they produce mass H2 burning cells gold and platinum will rise in price drastically

    • Numhold@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      10 months ago

      And let‘s not forget that the average home in 1920 was way more modest than today‘s average home.

    • droans@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m seeing $412K as the average price of a home in 2023, not $495K. And gold was $2,135 in 2023. The price in gold is still higher in 2023, though about 193 bars for a home.

      Couple other notes, more related to the post.

      1920 is an oddly good year to use. It’s just after WWI. Industrialization and modernization are taking off across the US. Worker’s rights are beginning to take hold and working class people are now able to afford homes. It’s before the Roaring 20s, so you’re not going to get the actual details obscured with the market rush and subsequent depression.

      There is a couple important downsides though…

      Firstly, mortgages didn’t really exist back then. I mean, they did, but they were horrific. You’d have to go to an insurance company because banks wouldn’t offer them. The terms would give the insurance company full ownership of the property. If you were lucky, it would be a balloon loan - pay only the interest during the 5-10 year term and then pay the entire balance at the end. If you were less lucky, it was a lifelong contract where you only paid the interest plus fees every month.

      There was an alternative but most people didn’t have access to it: membership in a Savings and Loan corporation, also known as Building and Loan or thrifts. You’d join as a member and agree to buy X shares every month. If you give a notice (30-90 days usually), you would be allowed to cash out the shares plus interest earned for their actual value. When you wanted to buy a home, you would be allowed to use your shares as collateral. Each monthly payment would pay for the interest and a certain number of shares. Once you had enough shares, you would redeem them to pay off the loan. A bit complicated, but S&Ls were fantastic for the common person. They were owned by the members of your community and all loans went to support said community.

      Secondly, kind of related to the first point, there were no 30 year mortgages. Home prices are virtually tied to the monthly payment and a thirty year mortgage allows for lower monthly payments. Prices might get out of line a bit, such as right now, if people believe that interest rates will drop and they can refinance later. Personally, I don’t think we’ll see any drops for at least two years and, even then, we won’t see anything like the 2020-2021 rates unless we experience an economic catastrophe like 2008. You want higher rates when the macro environment is strong and lower rates when it’s weak. Cheap debt in a good economy is basically a handout to the rich - makes you wonder why Trump pushed the Fed to keep them low back in 2018-2019…