> From: "Danny Van den Berghe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For example, why not an e-currency backed by real estate? > It could be better than gold. This would be pretty easy. All you would have to do is have the currency backed by shares of a REIT. Then you could transfer so many shares or fractions of a share. Of course, people would probably need a "dollars worth" function for the payment system, like they do for e-gold (and like goldmoney eventually added). For all of the talk of using gold itself as money or some other asset for money, it is still the "dollars worth" equivalent that circulates. The advantage of using REITs is that it would be easy to determine the value of your e-land share balance because all the REITs you use have a price determined on a traded market. If you just went out and bought a bunch of land randomly and started an e-land currency, who is to say how much a share is worth? If I wanted to buy something and spent 10 e-land shares to someone, what is that worth? It would take a lot of investigation by the seller to see how much those shares are worth to him, what kind of land is it, what is it's payout history, etc. (btw, lots of users, myself included, like and use e-gold because it's gold. However, I think a good portion of e-gold users don't care if it is based on gold or horse poop.) > Gold does not decay, but it does also not grow. An ounce of gold today will > still be the same ounce of gold in 10 years, in 1000 years,.. > So, gold keeps value. That's not exactly why gold keeps value. A dollar bill today will also be the same dollar bill in 50 years. The key is one is open to manipulation-magic and one is not. > But gold is not the only thing that does not decay. A piece of land is in the > same category. But land does grow stuff, and that's where it beats gold. > Every 20 years I can cut big trees on the land and harvest wood The land > remains there, but every so often something has grown out of it, that's not > case with gold. The conclusion must be that land is better than gold. The value of the land could vary widely. Some land could go infertile, urban land could find itself in a declining neighborhood or in a city on the decline (like Detroit). The acre will always be there, but the value could change greatly. As an investment, it is true that land can help produce more goods, and gold does not. Both Gold and Land are assets, and as such provide some protection against declines in the value of fiat paper. But gold is not only an asset, but is also divisible and transportable. If I go to Canada, I can take my gold, my value, with me and spend it. If I go to Canada and I own 10 acres of cotton fields in Lubbock, I suppose I could write shares out on napkins and try to trade them. The thing is that gold right now, since it doesn't act as money, is only a stable commodity that doesn't grow in and of itself (although it fluctuates up and down in relation to paper). However, if gold were money, then you could buy stocks with gold, buy land with gold, buy bonds with gold, etc. > currency will be able to pay a yearly 'interest' based on the produce that > comes from the land An interest payable in... dollars? > The electronic age is making everything 'liquid' and useable as 'money' One issue is that money should be widely accepted. If I have e-land or e-stocks, many people will not want that for payment. They will probably prefer something easily and widely exchanged. Of course it would make it at least possible to spend land as money. REITs securitize land, and a further level like e-land would monetize it. - John --- http://cambist.net --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
