/sci/ - Science & Math

Gold is used for stuff.
Originally, it was valuable as a currency because it was easily testable, rare, and did not corrode.

Same with silver.

Diamonds are valuable because they are rare and people want them.

I agree with you about the diamonds.

But the whole point of gold (like some other things) is that it's hard to duplicate, and rare, which makes it perfect as a tradeable and portable token of value.

Protip: the original currency was the human tooth (you only had so many of those).

>their uses are extremely limited and their worth is completely subjective
you mean like green paper
>it's basically a pyramid scheme
you mean like the illuminati

gold is needed for computerchips...
so its in your tv, mobile, whatever...

>>5679708
That's very interesting, I've never heard of that before

Diamonds (as in cosmetic gems) are almost entirely under the monopoly of De Beers, which keep the supply low voluntarily.
Not like it has any importance, if it infuriates you that your girlfriend wants one, tell yourself she would want some other expensive thing it diamonds were devaluated.

wasn't gold the metal with the least of electrical resistance or something?

I want you to take your phone and take out the battery, Look at the shiny parts where it connects to the actual phone. That's gold. Gold is incredibly useful in electronics as it is nonreactive!

Diamonds are very useful in drilling and mining! Because they are incredibly hard they are useful in mining! The reason that gold is valuable in jewelery is because it is rare! Pure diamonds for use in jewelery are also fairly rare.

About 80% of diamonds are used in Industry!

>>5679710
Well the value of diamonds is based ENITRELY on the illusion of short supply provided by the major diamond- mining/trading companies like De Beers.

OP obviously never played minecraft

>>5679728
Not true, Diamonds aren't actually that rare, its just that the majority are shit tier industry grade diamonds. Also, they don't just turn up in dump trucks. Diamonds are few and far between. You need to take about 10tons of dirt/ore's and sift and sort it to find a very low amount of diamonds!

The thing about diamonds is that unlike metals they aren't easy to filter out of the crap!

>>5679719
>wasn't gold the metal with the least of electrical resistance or something?

No. Copper and silver both have lower resistance than gold. The main virtue of gold as a material is that it's extremely non-reactive.

If copper were as rare as gold it would be much more valuable.

Gold has interesting chemical properties to start off. Among the others already said it is extremely resistant to corrosion, basically unalterable even in the most adverse climatic conditions. So it preserves just fine. Can be casted and recasted, coined, shaped into jewels etc. fon undefinite amount of times.
And well, it is beautiful and shiny and makes bitch stripping since the dawn of humanity.

Diamonds strips bitches too but as said they are almost a scam. Diamonds that retain high value are those of historical interest and of extremely well executed cut, so not the stuff usually avaible to the plebs. Also you drop a diamond, it might crack or break and then adios amigo.

>>5679724
Ok cool thanks

Yeah I know that industrial diamonds are used in cutting tools and drills etc, but I mean the cut diamonds

>>5679709
>Diamonds are valuable because they are rare
Diamonds are valuable because of price fixing by diamond companies. If these companies were American they'd be sued like crazy.

>>5679752
This.

Marketing has already won. All women want diamond earrings/ring. If you don't get her one, then you don't even love her.

>>5679766
Yeah, those have a bit of artificial rarity because, well, it's not a "free market" ressource in the first place, it's all about African politics.
But like I said, it hardly matters. If it lost its value, bitches would just want something else.

Because they are relatively rare to find, expensive to produce artificially, in limited supply, and they are useful, versatile, and durable.

>>5679735
No, there are lots of gem-quality diamonds along with the industrial ones. Without a cartel manipulating the supply, prices would be far lower.

You can see this in the way the diamond market works. Most second-hand gemstones are easy to sell and retain value well. Not diamonds, which you're pretty much limited to pawning for a tiny fraction of their new price.

Diamonds were once the rarest of rare gems, before the big mines were discovered. Now they should probably be considered semi-precious.

>>5679706
Gold is extremely useful, for all sorts of things, such that even with the high prices you still see it in everyday use.

>>5679776
Eyh, dealing with warlords is a dangerous business, gotta have some compensations.

Diamond is extremely useful. It is:

1) the hardest possible material
2) the material with the highest possible thermal conductivity

>>5679773
The diamonds are mined by slaves in africa but most of the machining and cutting is done in sweatshops in places like India.

>>5679788
Sure, but any competitor can build a sweatshop in India.
Not anyone can get his hand on a diamond mine though.

Why do men think they're uneffected by De Beers marketing?

>>5679786
>the hardest possible material
How's eighth grade treating ya?

Gold is far superior to copper as a conductor.

>>5679807

Diamond is the hardest known metal.

>>5679809
Copper is more versatile in its uses though.

It's hard to imagine the Statue of Liberty being brown though.

>>5679809
Silver and copper have lower resistance than gold.

>>5679708
I don't think what you're saying makes any sense.
Diamonds are rarer than gold, and just as hard to duplicate. Artificial diamonds are tiny and of poor quality; you'd never confuse them with 'real' ones.

>>5679811
>Diamond is the hardest known metal.
>hardest known metal.
>metal

Diamon is Carbon. Carbon is a non-metal

>>5679794
That is their main use, and it works.

>>5679824
>Carbon is a non-metal
An astronomer would disagree.

>>5679724
>The reason that gold is valuable in jewelery [sic] is because it is rare!

Nope. It's the most malleable known material. Similarly, platinum is the most ductile.

>>5679809
>Gold is far superior to copper as a conductor.

False.

>>5679824
>bitch doesn't know about my extensive research

>>5679811
Although this might not be scientific, it's almost certain that it is the hardest metal ever.

>>5679809
Did you mean to say that the other way around?
gold: 22.14 nano-ohm-meters
silver: 15.87
copper: 16.78
aluminum: 28.2

Same story for thermal conductivity
gold: 318 watts per meter-kelvins
silver: 429
copper: 401
aluminum: 237

Gold is used in electrical contacts because it's so resistant to corrosion, and it's a decent conductor, not because it outperforms copper.

Other most other "corrosion-resistant" metals, such as chromium, actually form a transparent oxide layer on the surface, which are electrical insulators.

>>5679834
>Not a single dragonforce joke yet

>>5679841

We were waiting for you.

>>5679821
>Diamonds are rarer than gold, and just as hard to duplicate. Artificial diamonds are tiny and of poor quality; you'd never confuse them with 'real' ones.
lel

>>5679821
>Artificial diamonds are tiny and of poor quality; you'd never confuse them with 'real' ones.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16036-artificial-diamonds--now-available-in-extra-large.html

"The most exciting aspect of this new annealing process is the unlimited size of the crystals that can be treated. The breakthrough will allow us to push to kilocarat diamonds of high optical quality,"

"We once sent one of our lab-grown diamonds for jewellery identification, it wasn't told apart from natural ones,"

>>5679834
the object with the highest velocity would "win"

>>5679813
it wasnt brown ... it was copper

>>5679850

we should clean it, shine that bitch up, and spray
clearcoat on it!

>>5679821
>Diamonds are rarer than gold, and just as hard to duplicate. Artificial diamonds are tiny and of poor quality; you'd never confuse them with 'real' ones.

Actually that's all propaganda for foolish housewives.

>>5679848

Velocity is relative, brah.

>>5679821
>Artificial diamonds are tiny and of poor quality; you'd never confuse them with 'real' ones.
That's actually propaganda from the DeBeers diamond monopoly and the like, so you'll keep buying blood diamonds from their African slave mines.

>>5679866
Fine then. Whichever has the highest velocity relative to the other.

>>5679878

>>5679878

If you run a large barge into a river bridge. It fucks the bridge up.

>>5679881
Try running a large bridge into a barge sometime.

Commodity analyst here. What doesn't seem to have much coverage here is silver. Hugely undervalued and used in everywhere where you don't use prehistoric technology.


Gold and diamonds have their uses in different industries but the prices are high at the moment due to central banks trying to hedge, asians (and preppers) hoarding it (india has millennial boner for gold). Gold has value and it's not in that big of a bubble, while it has great potential of bubbling up. Diamonds on the other hand are retardedly overpriced. Take a look at the output of various mines and their revenues. Do some math and you'll notice there's a pretty nice gap on the distribution side. Diamonds have pretty much no investment value. Only russians and chinese buy them (physically) or acquire long positions on some hilarious financial instruments. I'm not going to mention the major cartels for obvious reasons.

>>5679834
>Diamonds not being the hardest metal

Gold is useful for manufacturing of electrical products and can easily be shaped into whatever - thus the resell value is high.

Cut diamonds is just for getting women to like you/spreading their legs. Also rappers and sheikhs. It has zero resell value.

Diamond = hardest

gold = one of the densest substances that is reasonably abundant

they have some industrial applications and value as consumer goods

Their tradition as a medium of exchange or sign of wealth also plays a role, but these materials became traditional exactly due to their unique physical properties.

>>5679884

I was not piloting the tug when that happened. It is not my fault.

>>5679821
This is completely incorrect.

>>5679875
This *is* correct. The diamonds that can be artificially produced are now superior in every way to natural diamonds. The only thing unusual about the so-called "cultured" diamonds is that they are *too* perfect.
There are only a couple of companies that can do this currently, and they all laser-engrave the diamonds with their name to indicate the stones are grown in a vat. If they did not, they would (along with the rest of their family, probably) be fish food by now. Diamond producers don't fuck around.

I've heard talk of potentially being able to use diamond as semiconductor substrate instead of silicon in the future, enabling chips to run at much, much higher temperatures.

cubic zircon is actually shinier than diamond.

>>5679898
Though I may as well go dig up the article where I found that. It's Wired, but the article is decent and interesting. It's also 10 years old, so I imagine things have gotten a little better by now as far as producing larger and better crystals.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html

>>5679829
I don't think that people buy it because of that, more the awesome colour and rarity.

>>5679893
>The results were inconclusive.
Gets me every time.

1. “Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.”

2. “The problem with commodities is that you are betting on what someone else would pay for them in six months. The commodity itself isn’t going to do anything for you….it is an entirely different game to buy a lump of something and hope that somebody else pays you more for that lump two years from now than it is to buy something that you expect to produce income for you over time.”

3. “Gold is a way of going long on fear, and it has been a pretty good way of going long on fear from time to time. But you really have to hope people become more afraid in a year or two years than they are now. And if they become more afraid you make money, if they become less afraid you lose money, but the gold itself doesn’t produce anything."

4. “I will say this about gold. If you took all the gold in the world, it would roughly make a cube 67 feet on a side…Now for that same cube of gold, it would be worth at today’s market prices about $7 trillion – that’s probably about a third of the value of all the stocks in the United States…For $7 trillion…you could have all the farmland in the United States, you could have about seven Exxon Mobils (NYSE:XOM) and you could have a trillion dollars of walking-around money…And if you offered me the choice of looking at some 67 foot cube of gold and looking at it all day, and you know me touching it and fondling it occasionally…Call me crazy, but I’ll take the farmland and the Exxon Mobils.”

cont.

>>5679956

5. “The major asset in this category is gold, currently a huge favorite of investors who fear almost all other assets, especially paper money (of whose value, as noted, they are right to be fearful). Gold, however, has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative. True, gold has some industrial and decorative utility, but the demand for these purposes is both limited and incapable of soaking up new production. Meanwhile, if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end.”

6. “What motivates most gold purchasers is their belief that the ranks of the fearful will grow. During the past decade that belief has proved correct. Beyond that, the rising price has on its own generated additional buying enthusiasm, attracting purchasers who see the rise as validating an investment thesis. As 'bandwagon' investors join any party, they create their own truth — for a while."

7. “I have no views as to where it will be, but the one thing I can tell you is it won’t do anything between now and then except look at you. Whereas, you know, Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) will be making money, and I think Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC) will be making a lot of money and there will be a lot — and it’s a lot — it’s a lot better to have a goose that keeps laying eggs than a goose that just sits there and eats insurance and storage and a few things like that."

>>5679811
No, Dragonforce is

>>5679821
>Diamonds are rarer than gold, and just as hard to duplicate. Artificial diamonds are tiny and of poor quality; you'd never confuse them with 'real' ones.

The rarity of natural diamonds is an artificial rarity - the difference between the amount of diamonds that have been mined and the amount allowed into circulation is a couple orders of magnitude... enough that if they were released the value of diamonds would plummet.

Aritificial diamonds are actually more flawless than natural diamonds because the entirety of their production is controlled.

>>5679864

The 'value' of something is twofold:

firstly, there is the 'value in use', or real value

then there is the 'value in trade', or nominal value

'The things which have the greatest value in use frequently have little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange frequently have little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce any thing. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.'

>>5679776

I wonder whose fault that is...

>>5679706
supply and demand?

Diamonds are monopolized and controlled heavily to keep their prices high, they're not rare. Gold is actually a very finite substance and the Earth doesn't make it.

>>5679894
That was scientifically proven. Women like shiny stuff, just like birds. Show them a diamond, they run to it like moths to a flame.

Paul Krugman just wrote an article relating to it

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=1048028&f=28&sub=Columnist

It opened my eyes: basically people who hoard gold are the ones who are afraid of the government and think there's going to be a civil war where paper money will be useless and they'll be better off since they have gold

No economist worth their salt says we should go back to the gold standard, which is why the far right wants it.

>>5680008
Keynesian go home

>>5680011
>still clinging to his decorative shiny shiny

Hayekians go home

>>5680020
>he thinks low interest rates are good for the economy

>>5680026
>mistaking results of low demand for low interest rates

>>5680033
>implying government spending increases demand

That something has little use other than being designated as a store of value is precisely the point. If you don't get this basic idea you need to think about it for longer.

>>5680055
>implying people don't carry out self-fulfilling prophecies
Do you even constructivism

>>5680008
I don't understand. I don't know if I care for another gold standard, but I don't understand the benefit of printing money and devaluing all existing currency in circulation.

Printing new currency is basically the same as taxing everybody, where the people whom the money trickles down to last pay the most. It's temping to governments, from what I can see, because no one notices as much or complains as they would if it were a direct tax. Bleh. I bought some gold awhile partially out of paranoia of a major economic collapse that we only narrowly averted in the last few years and it seems to be something that would retain it's value pretty decently in such situations.

>>5680056

We nominate something to represent an exchange rate for goods or services. This rate fluctuates, whatever we nominate (gold, granite, wood). But ideally we don't want the nominated 'thing' to rot, or be easily replicated. Hence gold is a good nominee for storing value. And of course, it's value is arbitrary, like all things, dependent on what we are willing to exchange for it. But it will not rot or burn and is easily divisible.

It will always have some value of exchange for these reasons.

>>5680008
Krugman is without a doubt the dumbest person in existence to ever win a nobel prize.

>>5680070
>doesn't understand quantitative easing
>doesn't understand keynesianism
Of course you don't understand why a 2% annual inflation rate is desirable. You probably think high deflation is a good thing.

>>5680075
I have tried to understand those things. they don't make much sense to me. call me dumb.

Don't think; just buy, goyim!

>>5680079
Take an economics class or two. Wouldn't hurt. People should be forced to take political science and economics classes in college.

>>5680085

People shouldn't be forced to do anything. Especially not in the mind-controlled arena you suggest.

>>5680089
>college
>mind control

You obviously haven't been to college before. If only it was a mind control arena, then you wouldn't notice how many shitty professors there are.

and you have no notion of civic virtue/responsibility. Too bad you can't be vaccinated against stupidity, although you probably believe people shouldn't have to be vaccinated.

>>5680085
well I've read a bit and watched a lot of "introduction to economics" basic videos. Frankly the whole discipline sounds total bullshit guesswork full of models that all have weird anomalies that people just ignore because their the best models we have. I mean, a lot of things make sense but.. I have yet to understand the printing of money the way it's done by the fed or why that's a good idea over all. meh

>>5680094
>college
>mind control
>You obviously haven't been to college before.
this. if your actually going to college to try and learn something you'll find the vast majority of the value of college is from the like minded people you meet there. Otherwise you could just stay at home and read a book on the subject for the most part.

>>5680099
Economics was taken over by "rationalists" (whatever you want to call them) who do their work based on what they think SHOULD or WILL happen. It's ideological and it's why I've stayed out of it. Economic "forecasting" is what puts the social in social science.

>>5680103
>>5680094

Graduated physics. If it's not empirical it's just opinion, which is to say, mind-control. Looks like it worked on you two.

>>5680105
>Graduated physics. If it's not empirical it's just opinion, which is to say, mind-control. Looks like it worked on you two.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to imply.

>>5680105
>thinking political science isn't empirical

It is, to such an extent that politicians don't pay any attention to it since it's become so "scientific" and statistical. You just get retards extrapolating from case studies/anecdotes. Kind of like what you're doing right now.

Gold is elemental, you can't create it, you can't destroy it and anything you do to it can be undone to return it into it's pure state. There is only so much of it in the earths crust; about enough to fill a medium sized two storey house.

Diamonds are not elemental, they are not as rare as gold, they can be made and any physical processes you do on them can't be undone. Their value is completely artificial.

This thread was very educational, thank you.

>>5680063
>implying fiat currency works
>implying the fed isn't destroying the world economy
>implying the central bank hasn't caused 3 recessions
>implying low interest rates aren't making banks insoluble

>>5680112
>about enough to fill a medium sized two storey house.
dog shit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21969100

>>5680112
>they can be made and any physical processes
its ludicrously expensive to try though.
>Their value is completely artificial.
the value of everything is artificial you fuck

>>5680112
>going full retard

So I guess /sci/ is just a misnomer for /pol/ 0.5

>>5680112
>Diamonds are not elemental
>elemental
>carbon
wat.
See image.

>>5680118
>implying having a finance based economy is a good thing
>implying deregulation hasn't been a major problem
>not understanding the inherent instability of capitalism

Casino economies are so great, amirite

>>5680121
Dude, diamonds are easy as fuck to make, and even WITHOUT making them, they're really common.

>>5680110

>is "scientific"

"sorta"

>>5680132
microscopic diamonds maybe.

>>5680121
You have a strange sense of ludicrously expensive, 100 bucks a piece is not that bad.
see
>>5679904


>>5680129
He obviously means that there is not element "diamond" much like there is no element "water"

>>5680132
>diamonds are easy as fuck to make

so is the cure to AIDS, the gubment is just hidin it from us! I knows it

>>5680130
>implying taxation hasn't caused more problems than it's solved
>implying increased government spending hasn't slowed the economy down
>implying you can spend your way out of a depression
>not understanding that capitalism is much more stable without a central authority

>>5680142
>implying the Scandinavian countries are poor
lel, I can't handle this much delusion.

>>5680119
So which one is right? The one on the left will fill the volume of a 2 storey house.

>>5680121
No, you can buy lab grown diamonds for the same or even less than natural diamonds. They even did a how it's made episode on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FlUrQSts5g

>>5680121
Well yes value is artificial, but useful things have an intrinsic value that they will always retain. Most of the value of diamonds is inflated by a strong control on the market, it doesn't follow the supply-demand nature of value.

>>5680137
>>5680139
Brainwashed idiots detected.
Diamonds are price fixed by the cartels that own the mines. They intentionally restrict supply in order to make more money.

Plus, about synthesizing diamonds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond#Gemstones

>>5680142
>not understanding that capitalism is much more stable without a central authority
I don't get this. people seem to think this but without some kind of central authority enforcing basic rules of fair business making sure companies aren't always fucking each other over and actually competing on the merits of the quality and value of their products and services. Sure you can reduce regulation a lot, but wild west capitalism sure doesn't sound very good.

>>5680150
>implying they aren't just a tiny nation propped up by mineral resources
Just compare their GDP to any of the ACTUAL rich nations in the world. They're poor as shit.

>>5680152
> impurities in the manufacturing process
>Man-made diamonds can be distinguished by spectroscopy in the infrared, ultraviolet, or X-ray wavelengths. The DiamondView tester from De Beers uses UV fluorescence to detect trace impurities of nitrogen, nickel or other metals in HPHT or CVD diamonds

>posting evidence that disproves your own point

Because they are rare, have industrial usage and materialistic usage. Supply and demand.

>>5680151
>he one on the left will fill the volume of a 2 storey house.
that one huge mother fucking house.

Large diamonds are pretty much useless for anything but jewelry, which is in itself useless. Only reason they're expensive is because of monopoly. Gold is actually very useful and essentially impossible to create.

>>5680157
>implying they aren't just a tiny nation propped up by mineral resources
who was deny that? do natural resources somehow not count towards a nations wealth?

>>5680159
Cause everyone has xray vision mkay.

>>5680153
Wild west capitalism was so bad BECAUSE of government interference. The tycoons used their political power and influence to gain an advantage over the people.

If there was no government interference they would have just been shot on sight.
Look what happened in Lincoln county.

>>5680157
>using GDP as a measure of the standard of living for a country's entire population

China's population must be living large

You're definitely not an economist, that's for sure.

>>5680171
>all that matters is if it LOOKS real
It's like you don't even understand the mindset of people who covet diamonds

>>5680168
>If there was no government interference they would have just been shot on sight.
whats to stop a tycoon hiring a small army to defend itself with and fuck everyone over with?

>>5680170
Oh please, don't bring China into this. Just because they're gaming the system doesn't mean other countries are too.

>>5680153
Different anon, but more players = greater variety, better service and better competition. Decentralization is your friend, centralization is your enemy. The problems of a society arise when you get too depended on something (a service eg.), may it be either be private or state controlled.

>>5680178
They did anyway. They just killed everyone in their way, and if they met any resistance they called the government in and had them do the dirty work.

>>5680168
How do you prevent lobbyists from becoming politicians in a democracy?

Oops, I guess our political process allows for crony capitalism! Regulation would definitely not fix this problem, but laissez faire would!

>>5680179
>don't bring in evidence to the contrary, it would contradict my point
>implying scandinavian countries aren't more egalitarian than the U.S.
>implying they don't rank in the top 3 spots in FreedomHouse
I'm not going to let you get away with being stupid

>>5680186
Here's a bright idea: If the government has no power over the economy, then it DOESN'T MATTER who becomes a politician.

>>5680193
>top 3 in freedomhouse
Oh boy I'm sure impressed!

>>5680185
I can see how government can make these things worse, but for the life of me I can't see how things wouldn't still be fucking horrible without any government. Some people seem to propose that when you start removing regulation things start getting worse and worse for people only because all the regulation isn't gone yet and when you finally get rid of all of it, which I don't even see how that's possible, everything becomes perfect.

Any ways can we just come to the agreement that gold is valuable because of rarity and diamonds are valuable because of the vanity of women?

>>5680196
There was a time like that, it was called the industrial revolution

When human beings were treated like animals

>>5680193
I live in scandinavia, and socialism will kill us in the long run, if we don't embrace globalization.

>>5680189
sure. I don't get how that makes the case for no government at all though.

>>5679724
>go to tech dump
>get gold

>>5680205
this. everytime I see on of these argument presented to a litertarian or whatever I hear. "well that's because there was STILL some government regulation that was indirectly causing all of that shittyness". I can never understand the basic logic of these arguments.

>>5680196
>government not having control over the economy to some extent

Show me a government that is like that and is not Somalia.

>>5680202
Ideally, there would be NO CENTRAL POWER, everything would be decentralized. The problem is that there already is one, and it's extremely difficult to get rid of it.

>>5680205
And you know what fixed that?
Unions. Not the government.

>>5680210
You've already embraced globalization. That's why you have more immigrants for your companies to exploit, just like every other big player.

>>5679706
As we get built, the objectivity of what was once the absolute critical in constituting something becomes less and less relivant, the point being that back in the middle ages, gold, not so much diamonds, they moreless got sucked into the function scheme of gold, was the plastic/paper of today, and just as plentiful, as time went buy and it got more and more hoarded and valued for not just it's place but for it's comfort in both its ownership and fascinationing, did it become more and more of a rarity, and such was there a supply and demand, intrestingly enough it was around this peaking of aspects that the black plague came up and put an even further devide in the haves and have nots, and furthering the lessening of the absolute criticallity of it in society while even further cheapening the labour and more worthy makeups of value. Skip forwards a few hundred years and spreading of playforms and we have the internet.

tl;dr: OP, it is so that "the balance may be maintained"
-Kassadin

>>5680214
Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't.
Show me a government that doesn't want power.

>>5680217
>wanting anarchy
pls /pol/, pls

>>5679706
>gold
>uses extremely limited

>>5680222
>Unions
>not government
that's it, I'm out, this got too stupid for me to control

>>5680225
What's wrong with anarchy?
All the problems, communication, infrastructure etc... have already been taken care of.

>>5680220
No, people here live in a bubble. Also, there's more to globalization than just taking in immigrants.

>>5680217
that what I just said? again I don't see how that would be a good society whatsoever.

>>5680236
>>5680237
I'm out too

>>5679957
>>5679956

>not reading the only insightful posts in this thread

>>5680231
Utopia literally means "an unreachable place"
Lack of centralized govt. can exist, and it does, it's a fucking shithole turnout.
You've selectively forgotten the entire Enlightenment and its principles/outcomes.

>>5680233
No, YOU said that getting rid of the government would make things worse and worse until they got better. I just said it would be DIFFICULT to get rid of it. It would get better and better as more and more of it was removed, but it's really ingrained in our society and culture. And it would be difficult to prevent a new government from coming in and taking over right as the first one is removed.

>>5680244
Name one shithole without a centralized government.
protip: you can't.

What you're saying are areas with no governments are actually areas with SEVERAL governments competing with each other.

>>5680254
Somalia has no centralized govt., it has 3 groups vying for control.

>what you are saying is SEVERAL
yes, a country with groups trying to unsuccessfully control matters is by definition noncentralized. Don't get so analravaged when you're the one who brought it up.

>We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combination of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate[.] When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen.

>>5680270
No Denmark.

>>5680232
Are you Norwegian? You're country got lucky with the oil.

>>5680262
You are an idiot.
What I'm talking about is TOTALLY decentralized. ie: EVERY INDIVIDUAL PERSON has the same amount of power.

By your logic, he union and the confereracy made america a decentralized country, even though BOTH SIDES HAD A CLEAR POWER STRUCTURE!

>>5679709
> Diamonds are valuable because they are rare and people want them.

LELZ. People may want them, but they sure as fuck aren't rare. Their supply is controlled, but that control has long since degraded. Now people are paying big money still for certain diamonds from pure inertia. Sure, the decorative diamonds still command high prices, but common diamonds are, well, COMMON.

>>5679815
Wrong. Silver has lower, copper has higher.

>>5680236
This is hilarious because what '0222 said was actually true.

Saffron is more valuable than gold per gram.

>>5680287
Gold has lower conductivity than either of them.

>>5680293
Fuckin ground up beetles.

>>5680273
A group of people are not what one would characterize as centralization. Centralization is when there's only one controller of something. What you talk about is strong individualism and anarchism, which needs to die in a fire.

A government can exist in a decentralized society, only difference between that and a centralized society, is that state would be of equal status.

>>5680287
Wrong, check stuff before making assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conductivity#Resistivity_of_various_materials

Gold is a good tradeoff, it doesn't have as good electrical or thermal properties as copper and silver, but it doesn't tarnish.

>>5680302
>strong individualism and anarchism, which needs to die in a fire
You need to die in a fire

>>5680293
Hell yeah

>>5680293
>>5680299
THEY LIIVVVEEEEE

>>5680229
>mfw going through this thread and finding this

>>5680213
pre-centralized gov't early americas? foreigners come in, set up shop, destroy peoples and entire civilizations, slavery-- forced free labor which fucked up the lives and future lives of other races/peoples whilst at the same time fucking shit up for their own people because the only ones holding actual 'jobs,' goods and capital are those involved in the slave trade and the imperial take over goons. Most of the european 'americans' from that time were poor as shit and only had what they could make or find.

>>5680138
diamond isn't a compound its an allotrope
stop being highschool

>>5680323
wWHATttrt

>>5680020
>thinks his money is worth something

>>5680350
>tf I see when I picture you

>>5680229
I'm still better than you, no need to jump in the middle of teamfights and still can do heavy damage.

>>5680085

What online sources do you know of that you might recommend, serious question?

>>5681125
PSH Blow my combo all over your face and laugh as you cant even counter damage, then laugh as I bait around and then finally peal the team off my carries with 10% and STILL get away

>>5681149
seriously though kass is the hardest teamcarry in the game

Be good with him and be gold rank easy mode, ren and ez are his equals in playstyle
(ez build: cutlass IE Trinity btw, build nothing else or be forever bad)

>>5681152

this is what i get from reading /sci/ league of legends threads

holy shit you're all gold shitters kill me

They are rare and there is demand for them due to their aesthetic appeal. They are also used sometimes for things, like gold in cell phones.

>>5681149

Cool thumbnail

>Why is gold and diamonds still so valuable to this day?

Why are gold and diamonds...

...and that's where we leave off. Tune in next week.

>>5679706
> it's basically a pyramid scheme
Nah, certainly not a pyramid scheme. But you are right that the value is not determined by its inherent utility.

But what many fail to see is that money itself does not have to be useful. It is just a representation of a social promise. As long as the trust in the fulfillment of that promise is warranted, *anything* can be used as money - as long as its prevalence is somehow controlled. You could use sea shells, pretty stones, carved bones, printed paper and many more.

Galileo Galilei already wondered in 1632 about this.
"What greater stupidity can be imagined than that of calling jewels, silver, and gold "precious," and earth and soil "base"? People who do this ought to remember that if there were as great a scarcity of soil as of jewels or precious metals, there would not be a prince who would not spend a bushel of diamonds and rubies and a cartload of gold just to have enough earth to plant a jasmine in a little pot, or to sow an orange seed and watch it sprout, grow, and produce its handsome leaves, its fragrant flowers, and fine fruit. It is scarcity and plenty that make the vulgar take things to be precious or worthless; they call a diamond very beautiful because it is like pure water, and then would not exchange one for ten barrels of water."

>>5679706
>Their uses are extremely limited
wat. gold is one of the bets conductors of electricity and diamonds are one of the bets conductors of heat, if they were plentiful we would completely build computers out of gold and diamonds instead of copper.

On average to produce 1 Carat gem quality diamond you're looking at 250 tonnes rock. Most diamonds aren't gem quality.

Gold and diamonds are very useful. Diamond for tools, gold for electronics, investment etc.

>>5680107
>the guys I disagree with are biased

Sure.

>>5681450
>gold is one of the bets conductors of electricity
That is not the reason why it is valued. People do not buy, collect, admire gold because of its technological uses. For the average person, gold is indeed useless. It is the promise of guaranteed exchange for other goods which gives it its worth. In other words, gold - or money in general - is only valuable because people consider it valuable.

When that changes, perhaps because of a natural disaster, war or a zombie apocalypse - then all the money and gold is worth nothing. Things with functional purpose like drugs, food or iron will then be the currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

and

market dominance of De Beers explain why diamonds are so valuable.

Their uses are actually becoming important in the field of bioelectronics and nanotechnology. Look up gold and diamond nanoparticle coatings.

>>5680350
>mfwyf

diamonds are hard and are useful somewhat in some applications. Gold is a very useful conductor.