Why is Gold so valuable?

[klr]

Why not just say "value?"

Well, for my part, going back to my original post, I was contrasting gold and diamond valuables to a daub of paint by Andy Warhol.
The gold and diamonds have a value, whether you admire the object, or not.
An intrinsic value, in the value of the materials, that can be realised anywhere in the world. The same materials were worth a fortune a thousand years ago, and are still worth a fortune now. That's intrinsic value in my book.
A Warhol has to be authenticated as genuine. A "perfect" copy is worth fuck all, no matter how good.
In a thousand years time, what will it be worth? It's value relies on modern taste, and authentication as genuine, it's at the whim of fashion.
I don't think I'm abusing the words to say that gold and diamonds have an intrinsic value, whereas the Warhol is very subjective.
.

But here's where we diverge: I don't use "intrinsic" in this sense as "constant", or anything close to it. To me, the only "intrinsic" value of gold and diamonds relates to their industrial use as raw materials, in instruments, etc. And those of course can and will vary over time. Any other concept of value is just based on whim and fashion, and is thus extremely fickle. If we ever get ourselves hold of a gold-bearing asteroid, or (much more likely) start pumping out synthetic diamonds by the zillions, then much of the basis for the "value" of gold and diamonds will go out the window. Or if something even "rarer" came along. But I would go much further and say that it shouldn't even take developments like those. It's valuable because other people think it's valuable, and they think that because throughout history, people have usually thought it to be valuable. That just stinks IMHO - it's a sort of self-fulfilling and self-sustaining prophecy. I would suggest that a large part of the enduring attraction of gold as jewellery is because it's still perceived as "valuable", not so much because of it's metallurgical characteristics.

If the value of of gold on the global market was based on actual/projected industrial demands v. supply/extraction costs, as happens with so many other elements, then the value would likely plummet. Now, how can I make that happen?

[Rob]

Gold? Always believe in your soul.

I hereby owe you a thrashing for that.

Aren't diamonds your best friends?

[charlou]

Yep, people are culturally trained to think a certain way. Imagine a son or two there, and what they might consider their role to be.

[Hermit]

[klr]

Now that's some serious bling.

"I pity the fool who doesn't find gold valuable ..."

[Coito ergo sum]

Yep, people are culturally trained to think a certain way. Imagine a son or two there, and what they might consider their role to be.

What might that be?

[charlou]

Yep, people are culturally trained to think a certain way. Imagine a son or two there, and what they might consider their role to be.

What might that be?

Hint: I'm guessing we'll be in agreement on it.

[mistermack]

But here's where we diverge: I don't use "intrinsic" in this sense as "constant", or anything close to it. To me, the only "intrinsic" value of gold and diamonds relates to their industrial use as raw materials, in instruments, etc. And those of course can and will vary over time. Any other concept of value is just based on whim and fashion, and is thus extremely fickle. If we ever get ourselves hold of a gold-bearing asteroid, or (much more likely) start pumping out synthetic diamonds by the zillions, then much of the basis for the "value" of gold and diamonds will go out the window. Or if something even "rarer" came along. But I would go much further and say that it shouldn't even take developments like those. It's valuable because other people think it's valuable, and they think that because throughout history, people have usually thought it to be valuable. That just stinks IMHO - it's a sort of self-fulfilling and self-sustaining prophecy. I would suggest that a large part of the enduring attraction of gold as jewellery is because it's still perceived as "valuable", not so much because of it's metallurgical characteristics.

If the value of of gold on the global market was based on actual/projected industrial demands v. supply/extraction costs, as happens with so many other elements, then the value would likely plummet. Now, how can I make that happen?

I can't go along with that. Value is a human judgement, and for gold etc. it's been there for a long long time, long before industrial use.
I think gold and diamonds have an intrinsic value because they appeal to something in our brains. We like shiny things, we like things that don't tarnish, that last forever, and we like to have things that other people would like to have.
So long as the human brain stays as it is, they are likely to keep their value.
I agree with the supply and demand thing though.
If they become no longer rare, a vital part of the attraction is lost.
But they are still shiny and indestructible.
I suppose if a vast supply of gold was found, it would end up like stainless steel.
Nice, still popular, but nothing to brag about.
I personally prefer stainless steel, but that's just me.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yep, people are culturally trained to think a certain way. Imagine a son or two there, and what they might consider their role to be.

What might that be?

Hint: I'm guessing we'll be in agreement on it.

I'm not sure. There are so many views on it.

I tend to think boys learn that they are to be the providers, and their job is to give gifts to make girls happy.