Your points about gold are very interesting. Personally I think the most useful definition of money was given by Noah Harari when he said it is intra-subjective, i.e. it only has value to the extent others also believe in it. The Bayesian evidence for gold's value you reference in the second crazy view against gold is likely only that everyone continues to believe in it. Whether or not that constitutes value is more a philosophical discussion than any other, but I think you are quite right to point out that it is also an irrelevant discussion for practical finance purposes. I like to imagine what would happen if 95% of the market was represented by one guy and a supercomputer. Imagine he consistently formed objectively incorrect views and traded on them despite all emerging evidence to the contrary - well if he was 95% of the market where would it get you to trade against him?
If you don't mind me asking, would you prefer to express a position in gold in a) a miner, b) an etf, c) physical gold, or d) other?
Your points about gold are very interesting. Personally I think the most useful definition of money was given by Noah Harari when he said it is intra-subjective, i.e. it only has value to the extent others also believe in it. The Bayesian evidence for gold's value you reference in the second crazy view against gold is likely only that everyone continues to believe in it. Whether or not that constitutes value is more a philosophical discussion than any other, but I think you are quite right to point out that it is also an irrelevant discussion for practical finance purposes. I like to imagine what would happen if 95% of the market was represented by one guy and a supercomputer. Imagine he consistently formed objectively incorrect views and traded on them despite all emerging evidence to the contrary - well if he was 95% of the market where would it get you to trade against him?