The value of precious or semi-precious stones/gold/silver/platinum remain constant over silicone/quartz/rare elements, and although ornamental gold will retain value, its content in circuitry will only be realized when melted down. Tech. in jewelry is still trendy, so fashion may retain a given value, as would a "designer name", but its interconnectivity with batteries and/or current tech will limit resale and/or hereditary value until/unless tech stabilizzes and/or the piece in question can recharge itself (i.e., solar cells).
The downside I see is one that's implied in the article: all those upgrades on the electronics mean out-of-date or broken devices piling up somewhere, sometimes containing hazardous materials. Grandma's old jewelry that someone doesn't wear may take up a little space, but nobody worries about it leaking.
"Store of value" is an appallingly primitive thing to want. Wealth should be put to work. Buying gold means you think that everything your fellow human beings do is worthless.
Well, it can also mean that you think your fellow human beings are worthless: that they're going to rip you off.
The metafilter discussion about this article went someplace very, very interesting. Historically, jewelry has been the one form of investment instrument women were allowed to own in their own names. :/
What they did not go into is how any population that fears it will be deprived of its bank accounts, its real estate, and its businesses, will invest in gold, gems and jewelry, simply because they are portable and easier to hide.
I found reading that discussion really chilling in light of the recent discussion here about certain populations being disenfranchised of banking services.
"Store of value" means planning and deferring gratification for the future. People in primitive societies have to put everything they have to work or they'll starve. When they become able to save something for the hard times, or make do with less now so they can do more later, they're starting to advance.
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The metafilter discussion about this article went someplace very, very interesting. Historically, jewelry has been the one form of investment instrument women were allowed to own in their own names. :/
What they did not go into is how any population that fears it will be deprived of its bank accounts, its real estate, and its businesses, will invest in gold, gems and jewelry, simply because they are portable and easier to hide.
I found reading that discussion really chilling in light of the recent discussion here about certain populations being disenfranchised of banking services.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment