gakakkad wrote:Gold might be a hedge against the economic uncertainties of India,as long as it retains an intrinsic value..however its macro-economic impact would depend on the the willingness of the population to monetise it...if it is simply circulated within the Indian economy,it would be less useful .if it is somehow utilised to build infrastructure,universities,power generation capacity,buy oil etc than it has more value....
presently it is perhaps more a liability than an asset...
Sir there are certain flaws in that point of view.
It's important to understand the history of money. Slightly longish, but I request you to entertain this view. It's quite scenic.
All throughout the early times, prior to BC and into some AD, people didn't see the gold coins as we think of money today. These various gold coins had tremendous value, but they were just gold pieces. They were wealth for trade like everything else was.. That's simple logic, I know, but the vessel of oil, for instance was just as tradable as a gold coin. In fact, within most of the medium sizes city states of that era, barter of like goods was just as good or better than gold coin. One's life was better if he owned wealth he used.
Humans of that period didn't live all that long a time span. Even though some accounts prove otherwise, the majority of life went by rather quickly. If you were a regular part of society in general, your wealth was what you had and consumed during those short days. There were no banks or investment houses and the average person's return on a wealth unit was his length of use and it's quality of life enhancement. More to the point, this logic made these guys spenders of gold, rather than savers! If you had gained gold in trade, for your services or goods supplied, you had no reason to save it. There was no other money that needed to be hedged against value loss.
It's becoming more and more apparent that average people of that time quickly traded (spent) their gold for something useful of value, for both them and their family. They didn't have the excess we know today. In modern nomenclature; this logic dictates that a much smaller amount of gold money circulated and circulated faster than many supposed. All forms of jewlery and art objects were in the same situation.
For longer savings, even for those of above average means that had all they wanted, people tended to spend their most valuable gold coins first, while saving the least valuable (bronze, silver, iron) for emergencies and later use. To us, today this sounds strange, but place yourself in that time. It was better to build your most useful and needed store of things while times were good.
Therefore, you traded the gold, which brought the most equal trade, first. If things got so bad that one had to dig up the stash, you were trading for last ditch things anyway. Kind of like wrapping up and burying cto get yThis use of lower metal is suported. Remember, lots of things served as money objects them. Even much later, AD, it was common in the world to trade big iron bricks that were forged as a bull. It's use was in trade for "one bull" or something of that animal's value.
This tends to explain why so many hordes of lesser quality, non gold coins are always being found today. Roman silver, bronze, iron, copper coins are very common in digs at various archaeological sites in southern Bharat. The classic belief is that all the gold was found, melted down and recast. But that action just didn't fit the whole profile of life's need back then. The majority of gold in average and even upper hands was always on the move, in trade or payment for service. Each succession of ruler, simply reused the old coins or melted them down and restruck with a new image. And new gold was minted only if it was easy to find. Especially stolen jewlery. Mined gold was a very last resort.
Remember, real useful goods crowded a rich ruler's house, too and these were just as valuable and tradable as gold. Besides, far too many finds have come up with jewelry and no coins to suggest some robbery by thieves sold the coins to new rulers with melting pots. The gold would have been taken whether coin or art.
Taxes were paid in goods, service or coin (preferably gold) and regular people knew it. Far better to trade your gold and save your wealth in a bulky form so the tax man's take at least has a chance of taking less than enough. To store your wealth in gold and risk him finding and taking it all was just not acceptable.
The great gold stores we have found almost always point to their being the reserves of a rich ruling class. Just like modern billionaires, after too much comes excess and gold was the only alternative for someone with guards and regular army.
More and more evidence is mounting that the largest portion of gold, during this early period was, "On The Road"! The perception that every person had some portion of gold as savings is blunted by their lack of need for such wealth. Gold was needed and used to spend "On The Road" more so than in local domains. Whether for armies or traveling merchants, gold moved more than it was saved. Even gold in the form of art was "fair game" for the regular people to use as a tradable medium. In fact it was just as likely used as money "on The Road" as coins. This further explains the findings of small amounts of jewelry in most of the locations where small towns were located.
We find gold more in the "upper status" burial places of great cities in Europe than in the areas where common man traded, lived and kept his personal worth. We further conclude that gold was much harder to find and utilize, back then than many supposed. Yes, great amounts were around, but the reality was that these amounts were perhaps 1/2 or less than many others conclude. Simply because finding or producing gold meant displacing labor that could be making barter able goods of equal value. Besides, gold that was in trade, was valuable enough that what existed mostly covered it's need in long distance commerce. This further points to a much greater value for a much lesser amount of gold while it was used during this period.
When evaluating lifestyle wealth, back them, many often find themselves comparing things in a relative mode with today's perspective. In this position we think the mark has been far missed for gold worth. It's possible that gold payment, in these early times amounted to a hugh premium compared to today. The various goods and lifestyle conditions in existence, indicate a much higher relative worth for their goods of daily life. Thereby giving gold a much greater relative worth within one's life also. If a one stater Darius of gold, from Cyrus of Persia was worth a very valuable vessel of oil, why utilize the effort to find gold just to trade for some oil. Better to skip the gold production and make the oil. This was the norm for thinking by people not trading on the road, living "within local" city states. Indeed, outside the need to pay armies, a much smaller amount of gold did the job much better than us modern thinkers thought was necessary. Further, the use of oversea warfare and trade perhaps lost more gold into the ocean than we will ever know. The oft heard statement by roman Caesars was the draining of gold from Rome into the coffers of India is not lies.
Consider these possibilities well. In that gold today is in a much lesser existence, compared to modern goods supply and lifestyle enhancements, when comparing it to it's value in life in the past. It's true worth as a wealth medium could be a 1,000 times higher!
. 90% of such wealth is held by wimmen! our wimmen are so eco-powerful.
correctly, leave alone stripping the gold from all the citizens. Often GOI cannot do the census itself correctly or give proper Adhaar cards etc.,