> > For example, why not an e-currency backed by real estate? > > It could be better than gold. > > No, it could not. Gold has some properties that real estate > would always lack. First, gold is fungible. Which means > it is the same if you take an ounce or a gram. Real estate > is very different.
As far as I can see the properties that real estate lacks, are now created by the modern communication systems. Just like the free markets set the value of gold relative to all other things, the same happens with a share in the portfolio of properties that back the 'e-land' currency. The share in the properties is now just as fungible as the gold, even though the properties that back the share are not fungible. > With land, you have the "location-location-location" problem. > In other words, the three most important things in selling > real estate are location, location, and location. Where the > land is makes all the difference. Yes, but that's a knife that cuts on both sides. It can also be argued that if a piece of valuable property is destroyed (e.g. because it becomes radioactive), the remaining properties in good standing have increased in value since now non-radioactive land has become more scarce. So, it becomes just a question of having a sufficiently diversifed portfolio of properties inorder to neutralise the 'location problem' > Land therefore lacks fungibility. It also lacks one of the > sub-features of fungibility - divisibility. There are such > things as quantum units of gold. Atoms of gold are elemental > and if you subdivide what is left is not gold. Of course, > ownership of less than an atom of gold could be obtained by > dividing the ownership, but I don't see how redemption would > work out very well in that case. Similarly you can own 0.0001 piece of a share in 'e-land' Btw, you need not divide gold as small as an atom. If you have 1 gram of gold in your e-gold account, you cannot redeem it either. > Land on the other hand, stops being nearly as useful as you > subdivide into square feet and then square inches. In fact, > author Spencer MacCallum has written extensively on the > problems of subdivision. It tends to work out poorly. A > larger piece of land has many advantages. Which is another argument in favor of e-land. Cutting up a 400oz bar is not practical either. But because larger pieces of land can be more valuable, e-land has the possibility of increasing the average value of its holdings by buying neighbouring pieces. With gold, the average value of the gold does not increase with buying more bars. > > The conclusion must be that land is better than gold. > > I think this conclusion is comparing apples to oranges. > Apples are crisper and have more tartness. Oranges have > lots more Vitamin C and make a different juice. Each has > attractions. Saying that apples are better than oranges > or land is better than gold reveals your preferences, but > these are not likely shared universally. That's very good. As long as not everyone agrees that land is better than gold, I can go on buying land at cheaper prices. > Even so, free market money is free market - you don't need > anyone's permission to form a land bank and issue money. > Go for it. I am too lazy. And it's already happening. The difference between stocks and cash money is getting smaller and smaller. It will not be long until you can pay with stocks , just like you pay with currency or gold today. > > will be able to pay a yearly 'interest' based on the > > produce that comes from the land, > > Obviously, each piece of land will produce differently. > City land will collect rents. Country land will collect > produce. Ranch land will show an increase in cattle. > Of course, the farmers and ranchers will have something to > say about the production. Desert land will produce very > little, unless people start going for cacti in a big way. Hmm, desert land may become wonderfully productive once solar energy becomes a viable alternative for oil. > > instead of charging a storage fee for protecting the > > gold. > > Gold can be rented out, same as land. Of course, lease > rates for gold have been pretty abysmal lately. It will be a problem to rent out gold that you are using as backing for an e-currency. > > The electronic age is making everything 'liquid' and useable > > as 'money' That trend seems unstoppable to me. > > I think the trend is excellent. The lack of fungibility > of stocks and bonds and many other things is going to make > them less operable as currencies. Round the clock markets (electronic trading platforms), where all these stocks and bonds can be traded instantly, make them as useable a 'currency' as gold or dollars. > More competing currencies based on > different metals, different types of land, different types > of value-instruments would be good. They will all compete > and the winner will be much better than whatever is on offer > from governments today. I don't see any winner coming out, they will just go on existing next to each other and being priced relative to each other. Just like there is no 'winner' coming out of the stock market. People will understand the benefit of being diversified in different 'value-instruments'. Having all your eggs in one basket (one e-currency) puts you at the risk of loosing everything if that currency goes belly-up Danny --- 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.
