Kosmo 5 Report post Posted January 15, 2009 Nice quote and link Moon. Thank you. I'll read the book when I fix the issues between my Vista and Adobe Reader 7. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M. Porcius Cato 2 Report post Posted January 15, 2009 The price of precious metals varies as well as any other commodity. See for example the rapid increase in gold prices in the last few years. So what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kosmo 5 Report post Posted January 15, 2009 So it's not a great tool for comparisons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Klingan 2 Report post Posted January 16, 2009 The price of gold was changing rapidly during ancient times as well, take as example when Alexander found the treasury in Persia. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Northern Neil 3 Report post Posted January 16, 2009 It seems that gold and silver always seem to have kept their prices relative to each other, about 20/1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M. Porcius Cato 2 Report post Posted January 17, 2009 So it's not a great tool for comparisons. That doesn't follow. If metals were the only commodity to rise and fall while all other commodities and goods were stable, then I'd take your point. But that just isn't the case. Over the periods that we're talking about (i.e., in making historical comparisons, not week-to-week comparisons) precious metals tend to be valued relative to other goods with more stability than any other good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M. Porcius Cato 2 Report post Posted January 17, 2009 The price of gold was changing rapidly during ancient times as well, take as example when Alexander found the treasury in Persia. OK, take it as an example. What was the "price of gold" (where? Alexandria? Athens? in what units? in silver?) before Alexander found the treasury and what was the price afterwards? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Northern Neil 3 Report post Posted January 17, 2009 OK, take it as an example. What was the "price of gold" (where? Alexandria? Athens? in what units? in silver?) before Alexander found the treasury and what was the price afterwards? I would have thought that in ancient times and up to the point when modern governments abandoned the gold standard, the 'price of gold/silver' was impossible to asses. That would be like saying 'What is the price of a dollar? the answer - a dollar'. Maybe there is documentary source which gives an idea of prices in the pre hellenistic and hellenistic periods, then a more definitive statement can be made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moonlapse 1 Report post Posted January 17, 2009 OK, take it as an example. What was the "price of gold" (where? Alexandria? Athens? in what units? in silver?) before Alexander found the treasury and what was the price afterwards? I would have thought that in ancient times and up to the point when modern governments abandoned the gold standard, the 'price of gold/silver' was impossible to asses. That would be like saying 'What is the price of a dollar? the answer - a dollar'. Maybe there is documentary source which gives an idea of prices in the pre hellenistic and hellenistic periods, then a more definitive statement can be made. Exactly. That's why I said that its not the money that matters but the real wealth that the money servers as a medium of exchange for. The 'price' or value of money is the value of the goods that it can purchase. Historical changes in the value of gold, such as one involving Alexander or the Spanish discovery of American gold, are the result of the increase in the supply of money (gold) relative to the real wealth (goods) that it served as a medium of exchange for. Prices are just a ratio between the medium of exchange and real wealth. Converting historical economic values into modern ones does not take into account the increases in real wealth brought about by technological progress and the results are therefore arbitrary for the most part. The concept of value in itself is subjective and relative, and at some point in the calculation there will be the assumption of 'all other things being equal' when in fact they are not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moonlapse 1 Report post Posted January 27, 2009 Somewhat relevant to the topic: Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tobias 1 Report post Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) That's one of the factors that led to the downfall of the Eastern Roman Empire as well. Once the Hyperperon was debased to 7 parts gold in 12 in 1282 AD, the Venetians minted their own gold coin, the Ducat, which replaced the Hyperperon as the gold standard of Christendom. Thus, Constantinople went broke pretty quickly, and as such, the remnants of the Empire were torn apart by Serbs, Turks and the Italian trading cities such as Venice. That said, it took a bit less then 200 years before the fall. Obviously Augustus saw where paying huge cash bonuses to the legions would lead; it always amazes me how people think that just because time has passed, the lessons of the past no longer apply, hence why history is doomed to repeat itself, such as in the 3rd century A.D. Edited January 28, 2009 by Tobias Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TiberiusHoratiusCeler 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2013 Maybe its smarter to look to the value of all the roman coins. The weight of 1 roman gold coin is 7 g. 1g of gold is worth +/- 29 dollar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites