« The edge of the knife | Main | Markets in everything China fact of the day »
Gold fact of the day
...the world produces a cube of gold that is about 4.3 meters (about 14 feet) on each side every year. In other words, all of the gold produced worldwide in one year could just about fit in the average person's living room!
The total amount of gold, ever produced by mankind, is estimated to fill only one-third of the Washington Monument. Here are the calculations, including an estimate for the even more scarce platinum. Hat tip to Jason Kottke.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 23, 2008 at 08:29 AM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
The version I heard, as a high schooler on a field trip to the New York Fed circa 1982, was that all the gold ever mined, if formed into a cube, could fit inside a basball diamond.
Posted by: KipEsquire at Dec 23, 2008 8:36:38 AM
When the hyper-inflation comes (some time in the next five years), we'll wish we had adopted the gold standard.
Whenever someone fails to listen to Dr. Ron Paul, it can only come heartache and despair.
Posted by: pmp at Dec 23, 2008 8:54:00 AM
Here's another platinum trivia point, via Isaac Asimov. You can make a relatively small piece of platinum, say a one-meter cube, and put enough handholds on it for it to be lifted by the "bare, unaided strength" of the exact number of people it would take to lift it, but in reality, they would be unable to do so.
The reason why is because that one-meter cube of platinum would weigh 22,420 kilograms (49,429 pounds). If you assume that a typical person can lift maybe 120 kilograms (265 pounds) through their "bare, unaided strength," it would take 187 people to lift it. While you could put enough handholds on the platinum cube for all those people to grab onto, in reality, you could really only fit about nine people around that one-meter cube to lift it.
It's a classic example of the kind of problem whose solution is possible, but not practical.
Posted by: Ironman at Dec 23, 2008 9:26:00 AM
Ron Paul is fun to listen to and a smart guy, but the pure laisser-faire nonsense he espouses is a huge part of what got us into this diaster in the first place. Ron Paul should go hide with his guns and stop pretending he understands economics, where all he does is fire up people who aren't smart enough to understand anything more nuanced than "government bad".
Pure laisser-faire economics is dead, as we now understand stability for all is substantially more important than letting a few rich guys get really rich.
Posted by: RN at Dec 23, 2008 9:27:12 AM
but the pure laisser-faire nonsense he espouses is a huge part of what got us into this diaster in the first place.
What wacky weed have you been smokin'?
Posted by: J at Dec 23, 2008 9:50:15 AM
RN, WTF are you talking about? Here is what Ron Paul has to say about our "lassez-faire" (is that a new euphamism for Keynsian?) policies designed to increase home purchases:
"However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall."
Ron Paul, July 16, 2002
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/
Posted by: Ninja Zombie at Dec 23, 2008 10:15:07 AM
The one thing that Ron Paul 'nominally' gets right is that Greenspan held interest rates too low for too long in an attempt to fight delfation and thereby encouraged bubbles, the housing bubble in particular. And Greenspan did work for the government.
Of course, it's a silly argument because had there been a more competent, non-"free markets solve all problems" Fed chair in his place, we'd almost certainly be in much better condition than we are now.
The evidence is now undeniable what happens when we put one of you free market radicals in charge. Very bad things.
Because, like you, he had a misplaced faith in free markets to solve all problems, and did not exercise his authority to bring more transparency and regulation, something every credible economist on the right and the left now believes we needed much, much more of.
Greenspan himself, Libertarian to his very core, has publicly admitted this serious mistake.
Will you?
Posted by: RN at Dec 23, 2008 11:51:06 AM
"Ron Paul is fun to listen to and a smart guy, but the pure laisser-faire nonsense
he espouses is a huge part of what got us into this diaster in the first place. R
on Paul should go hide with his guns and stop pretending he understands economics,
where all he does is fire up people who aren't smart enough to understand anything
more nuanced than "government bad"."
If you think that "pure laisser-faire nonsense" is even a minute part of the current
situation (disaster has a specific meaning in risk management and it isn't applicable here,
you are the one pretending to understand economics. People who, for a minute espouse that
view are either brain dead or invincibly ignorant and easy fodder for politicians with
messianic delusions who prey on idiots that are leading us on the road to serfdom.
Posted by: Superheater at Dec 23, 2008 12:26:21 PM
"Ron Paul is fun to listen to and a smart guy, but the pure laisser-faire nonsense
he espouses is a huge part of what got us into this diaster in the first place. R
on Paul should go hide with his guns and stop pretending he understands economics,
where all he does is fire up people who aren't smart enough to understand anything
more nuanced than "government bad"."
If you think that "pure laisser-faire nonsense" is even a minute part of the current
situation (disaster has a specific meaning in risk management and it isn't applicable here,
you are the one pretending to understand economics. People who, for a minute espouse that
view are either brain dead or invincibly ignorant and easy fodder for politicians with
messianic delusions who prey on idiots that are leading us on the road to serfdom.
Posted by: Superheater at Dec 23, 2008 12:27:16 PM
"Ron Paul is fun to listen to and a smart guy, but the pure laisser-faire nonsense
he espouses is a huge part of what got us into this diaster in the first place. R
on Paul should go hide with his guns and stop pretending he understands economics,
where all he does is fire up people who aren't smart enough to understand anything
more nuanced than "government bad"."
If you think that "pure laisser-faire nonsense" is even a minute part of the current
situation (disaster has a specific meaning in risk management and it isn't applicable here,
you are the one pretending to understand economics. People who, for a minute espouse that
view are either brain dead or invincibly ignorant and easy fodder for politicians with
messianic delusions who prey on idiots that are leading us on the road to serfdom.
Posted by: Superheater at Dec 23, 2008 12:28:37 PM
"Ron Paul is fun to listen to and a smart guy, but the pure laisser-faire nonsense
he espouses is a huge part of what got us into this diaster in the first place. R
on Paul should go hide with his guns and stop pretending he understands economics,
where all he does is fire up people who aren't smart enough to understand anything
more nuanced than "government bad"."
If you think that "pure laisser-faire nonsense" is even a minute part of the current
situation (disaster has a specific meaning in risk management and it isn't applicable here,
you are the one pretending to understand economics. People who, for a minute espouse that
view are either brain dead or invincibly ignorant and easy fodder for politicians with
messianic delusions who prey on idiots that are leading us on the road to serfdom.
Posted by: Superheater at Dec 23, 2008 12:28:49 PM
"Ron Paul is fun to listen to and a smart guy, but the pure laisser-faire nonsense
he espouses is a huge part of what got us into this diaster in the first place. R
on Paul should go hide with his guns and stop pretending he understands economics,
where all he does is fire up people who aren't smart enough to understand anything
more nuanced than "government bad"."
If you think that "pure laisser-faire nonsense" is even a minute part of the current
situation (disaster has a specific meaning in risk management and it isn't applicable here,
you are the one pretending to understand economics. People who, for a minute espouse that
view are either brain dead or invincibly ignorant and easy fodder for politicians with
messianic delusions who prey on idiots that are leading us on the road to serfdom.
Posted by: Phil at Dec 23, 2008 12:51:07 PM
When the hyper-inflation comes (some time in the next five years)Maybe if you understood how recessions and interest rates work, you would know that we're probably headed toward not hyperinflation but rather deflation (unless the Fed does something about it). Actually, it's funny: one good policy for the Fed to pursue would be inflation because that will increase real interest rates and give people an incentive to invest. And maybe if you understood that, you wouldn't be such an ardent supporter of a loony gold standard.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Dec 23, 2008 12:57:16 PM
^ Oops, I meant that inflation would decrease real interest rates.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Dec 23, 2008 12:59:33 PM
Daniel Reeves,
Quantitative easing on steroids will produce inflation, no deflation. This is not your father's Great Depression.
How could it be otherwise, in a nation with massive consumer and government debt? Economists outsmart themselves when they try to analyze the inflation-vs-deflation issue, because at this point it's purely a matter of politics, not economics. Many economists will get this wrong, while laypersons wholly ignorant of economics are actually far more likely to deduce the correct answer.
Posted by: at Dec 23, 2008 1:25:39 PM
All I want for Christmas is an agreement to not ruin additional threads by provoking the Paul fanatics, who have the medical doctor's rants on everything from bad foreigners to bad economics memorized (or bookmarked) and will fill pages of the comments sections with copy-and-pastes.
Posted by: MM at Dec 23, 2008 1:31:28 PM
How could it be otherwise, in a nation with massive consumer and government debt?
Because that really has nothing to do with it.
conomists outsmart themselves when they try to analyze the inflation-vs-deflation issue, because at this point it's purely a matter of politics, not economics.1) the Federal Reserve is not hampered by the political process.
2) There's no other way to interpret your comment than to conclude that you don't think you understand that recessions, left unchecked, usually create low inflation (or deflation) and not high inflation (in such a case, it would be stagflation). With our current extremes, stagflation is far from a possibility; in fact we are possibly looking at deflation. And, you know, we actually want a good amount of inflation because that would lower real interest rates.
Many economists will get this wrong, while laypersons wholly ignorant of economics are actually far more likely to deduce the correct answer.No.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Dec 23, 2008 1:50:46 PM
^ Sorry for my butchered up comment, there; I'm a bit tired.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Dec 23, 2008 1:52:20 PM
The idea that the Federal Reserve is not hampered by the political process is patently absurd. This can only be true if by "political process" one means something akin to "election cycle."
To state "we actually want a good amount of inflation" assumes "we" have the same goals, asset and debt structure, age, etc.
I have been amused with level of gold in ocean water (one estimate: a cube approximately 1/2 mile per side). Perhaps a method for mining it involves farming organisms which make use of it (at some very different price level than today's).
Posted by: rluser at Dec 23, 2008 2:34:55 PM
I normally like Gregory Mankiw but his dismissal of inflation may be a consequence of his
employment, which seems to be able to more than keep up with inflation.
Posted by: Phil at Dec 23, 2008 2:50:14 PM
Amoebas with really little pans?
Posted by: MH at Dec 23, 2008 2:54:41 PM
rluser and MH,
Apparently the Japanese have a plan to extract uranium from seawater using genetically-modified seaweed.
Posted by: at Dec 23, 2008 3:45:22 PM
Anon At 3:45. Then don't tell the Japanese about my army of amoebas. I don't want to give away my idea before I get a patent.
Posted by: MH at Dec 23, 2008 4:06:41 PM
Assume it was a copy/paste error, but I like it..."conomists"
As for Ron Paul, I'd say that the argument that Laissez Faire wasn't tried before this crisis is more reality-based than the argument that fiscal policy wasn't tried during The Great Depression.
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 23, 2008 4:44:13 PM
Ron Paul is fun to listen to and a smart guy, but the pure laisser-faire nonsense
he espouses is a huge part of what got us into this diaster in the first place. R
on Paul should go hide with his guns and stop pretending he understands economics,
where all he does is fire up people who aren't smart enough to understand anything
more nuanced than "government bad".
I agree with you!
Posted by: pulverizer at Dec 24, 2008 3:49:43 AM
