Global wealth inequality: Looks like the top 1% are headed for a majority stake.

[senseamp]

And senseamp won't rest until the brown people of the world are all picking his lettuce for a penny a year.

You're worse than any conservative.

People around the world have jobs, and Americans have lettuce. Vs conservative, no jobs, no lettuce, just a promise of trickle down in the next life.

 

[BoberFett]

People around the world have jobs, and Americans have lettuce. Vs conservative, no jobs, no lettuce, just a promise of trickle down in the next life.

You are truly useless.

 

[senseamp]

You are truly useless.

You must be confusing me for a conservative economist.

 

[Matt1970]

Fluff off. I answered your question quite directly by pointing out its major flaw: "earn" is ambiguous. You've now spent several posts weaseling out on addressing this huge hole. Again, this is because you cannot answer that question honestly without undermining your ideology.

Go play.

LOL, you are looking at fail in your rear view mirror.

 

[Fern]

Yes, but the Doritos cost more than a pint of blueberries. Similarly, apples cost more than macaroni and cheese. It's easy to cherry pick specific examples to support one's position, but overall, higher incomes lead to healthier diets.
-snip-

For the past 10 years I've taken over the responsibility for grocery shopping and preparing food in my family. I think healthy eating is more a matter of interest, education (cooking skills) and time and effort than anything else.

I suppose it can be fairly argued that eating 3 meals from the Dollar Menu is less expensive that buying fresh vegetables and meat and preparing them; but not by much. Produce and meat are always on sale, you just have to shop intelligently.

Fern

 

[nickqt]

That was an impressive amount of words to say absolutely nothing. You still didn't answer the question, just rant and parrot a bunch of left wing talking points. Well done, you've met my expectations for you.

I love how you say absolutely nothing, at all, in regards to what I said.

Nothing.

You do have 30,000 + posts, and from everything I see, most of them are you calling people stupid, losers, or making wild accusations, such as me being a previously-banned account.

Call people stupid, argue that no one answers your questions...

While flat-out dismissing what other people say.

You sure are a valuable contributors here. Much more valuable than people who actually carry on a conversation without calling the person names.

Keep it up.

 

[ralfy]

That's simply false.

How is it false?

 

[BoberFett]

Blah blah blah bunch of bullshit

I said plenty in this thread, and you came back with a bunch of unrelated talking points doing nothing but complaining.

The only thing YOU have posted around here is "DURR I LIKE MAKING FUN OF CONSERVATIVES DURRRRRR!!!!" Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[BoberFett]

How is it false?

Because there's no evidence that inequality is the cause of the economic collapse. False is a very simple word to understand. I suggest that if you don't understand the concepts of True and False, you're not equipped to discuss more complex topics.

 

[nickqt]

I said plenty in this thread, and you came back with a bunch of unrelated talking points doing nothing but complaining.

The only thing YOU have posted around here is "DURR I LIKE MAKING FUN OF CONSERVATIVES DURRRRRR!!!!" Pull your head out of your ass.

I make fun of conservatives after they accuse me of things that I am not, because that is childish and a logical fallacy.

All you seem to do is curse and call people stupid.

Keep it up.

 

[Jeff7]

Much of that wealth consists of credit, and generally numbers in hard drives. Fallout from only a fraction of that wealth led to the 2008 financial crisis.

My bank account is a number stored on a server somewhere. Same with my retirement accounts and savings bonds. The value isn't stored in gold bullion or some other shiny metal or fancy gemstones. The numbers on the computers say that I have some level of purchasing power.

I don't care how rich someone is.

I do care that they use their money and connections, owning and operating the government for their own benefit. while claiming to be persecuted victims.

That someone with tens/hundreds/millions of millions of dollars feels persecuted because people talk about raising their taxes (oh noes!) while they actively use their money to get legislators to write laws that favor them, is ridiculous, and disgusting.

It's hard to hold onto a republic/representative democracy when the people with the money are doing their best to capture the government and use it as a tool for themselves.

This is really where the problem is. The wealth itself isn't the problem. It's the influence it can buy.

Our species is terrible at responsibly handling concentrated power. It's a recurring theme throughout our history. Eras are punctuated by corrupt rulers and governments. It's a mistake we keep repeating across thousands of years.
Various government systems have been made with the intention of preventing power from concentrating in one place. You have multiple branches of government, there are concepts like "state rights," and there can be multiple political parties. But now we have people and organizations who have, independent of government, amassed such incredibly immense amounts of wealth that they can effectively bypass or even outright subvert those protections against concentrated power. That is the problem.

Most of our history is a series of 1% owning the majority of the wealth. Spreading of wealth is a relatively recent event brought on by liberalization of markets and govts. No middle class has ever been built at the behest of a govt or king.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could break ourselves of that?
It's a family, and each generation will periodically hold a hand in an open flame just to see if it's still hot, and every single time they end up getting burned. Someone comes along and decides to put a cover over the flame to keep hands away from it. The next generation doesn't like being limited by such restrictions, so they remove the cover piece by piece until they can fit a hand through, and subsequently get burned.

As a group, we're being just as persistently stupid.
"Every other time power gets concentrated in a small group, things go to hell in a hurry. I know! Let's try it again!"

What about the scientists who created all the drugs and technology you enjoy? You think all of them are getting rewarded like Gates or famous fantasy writers? We aren't a meritocracy in a true sense, where discoveries are rewarded by their originator in proportion to their importance. I'm sure you'll produce a handful of exceptions, because there always are, but exceptions they remain.

On the subject of systemic bugs in the human brain, there's another one: A bizarre obsession with fame.
Doctors or scientists or farmers produce goods and services which permit people to live. We don't want to pay them much though, particularly farmers. But men who play with air-filled balls can get millions of dollars a year. People who pretend to be other people can receive tens of millions for a single movie.

Actually this has been done before through tax policy. When the maximum tax rate was 90%, the companies would reinvest as much as possible back into the business to avoid paying anything close to those rates. Guess what the company expands, and hires mores employees, and maybe pay out a little more to their employees.

My employer does this. There's some kind of tax incentive for purchasing new equipment, and the owner wants the business to survive long-term. He's not just some person hired to run the company, which is what you see in some multinationals, where they get someone to run the company, but the person is only really there to temporarily secure stock options, try to boost the stock price, then cash out before the company crashes and burns. This is his company. He started it, and he'll likely be involved there until he dies.
So every year, a nice bag'o'money shows up, and we're all tasked with finding equipment to buy to not only get those tax breaks, but also which will make the company profitable into the future.

Come on man...you're better than that.

You are saying its not possible for a lower middle class guy to become stinking rich? You're saying its not possible for a stinking rich guy to become lower middle class?

If I was making $30k/year I would honestly consider just not working and letting the government send me money, give me free food, free healthcare, free rent. But I make more than that so I work hard and try to increase my income even more..

Possible, but very improbable and exceedingly difficult. To stretch the spectrum a bit, someone living on $5/day in Bangladesh has a pretty shitty chance of making it to even the level of a $25k/year job. They weren't born into a chance where that opportunity even exists. Their meager income is entirely devoted to the basic necessities.
In the US, the cost of living is higher, and while the upper crust has seen its income constantly increasing as the cost of living continues creeping higher, the lower class hasn't seen their income keeping pace with the costs. A lot of the money keeps getting funneled to the top. You hear too often that companies are showing record profits, yet management there will tell the rank&file that there's no money left for raises.

They can't take the risk of trying to do something to move themselves up because the loss would be catastrophic. Someone who already has a million dollars sitting around can risk $600k and lose it all. Don't worry, they still have $400k sitting in reserve.
Someone with $200 in the bank and is relying on the next paycheck to show up on time can't incur much risk.

...
Something must be done though. There have to be reforms to the tax code. Dividends need to be taxed at much higher rates. Estate tax should be institutided at 50% on the >$5M estates across the board. We could put that money towards infrastructure and education reforms that would benefit the rich and poor alike.

Of course, the rich will find ways around all of this. None of the reforms will work.

Honestly, I have no idea what the solution to this is. I will say that, on a personal level, I would advise people that money can only get you so far in life. It's great to want to do well, but don't spend your life pursuing great wealth at the cost of being happy.

And once they are in a position where they have a good amount of influence, they become firmly entrenched. It's an outgrowth of our aversion to losses. (The magnitude of the good feeling from receiving $50 is less than the pain of having $5 taken from you. Our ancient primate brains blow it out of proportion, and some part of your mind translates the theft of resources to "This person is trying to kill you. Defend yourself at all costs.")
That's why prevention is preferable. That's why it works better to have things like 401k investments taken out before you get the paycheck, rather than after: It's already gone, so it doesn't always feel as bad as having the money there in front of you and then having to send some of it away.

.....like the billionaire bankers who risked the entire monetary system of the United States for their own personal financial enrichment..... and then accepted a government bailout funded by the middle class American worker drones when it blew up in their faces

And then continue pursuing more risky ventures, since they know that they're "too big to fail," and the government will be there to throw money at them. If you've got a kid who likes to jump off of rooftops, but he knows that there'll always be someone there with a net to catch him, is he ever going to stop jumping? No. He'll be looking for taller buildings.
Christ, people complain about anyone on Welfare who abuses the system? These people are billionaires who are begging for a financial safety net as if they're $10 away from poverty.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the wealthy 1% consume as much food as the 99%? That they own as many cars as the 99%? That they occupy as many homes as the 99%? That they use as much internet bandwidth as the 99%?

What are these resources they're consuming?

More that they hoard and control the supply, while still complaining that they don't have enough, and also exerting powerful influence over the source of the resources to ensure that they keep getting more. Power play.

You seem to speak of the wealthy as if they were somehow separate from US government...

Government of the people for the people by the people?

How about:
Government of the rich for the rich by the rich.

LOL

Uno

This is where it is certainly not a representative government. Some of these people may not even know what it's like to live on less than a 6-digit family income. Others could have forgotten, or else glossed over memories of the past. "Yeah, I remember growing up 50 years ago on a poor family farm. It wasn't so bad." While conveniently forgetting the times when their dad had to work 16hr days, the delightful smell of pig pens, or a family member losing an arm to a piece of farming equipment. You know, those "good old days" that everyone talks about. Despite those good old days always being so wonderful, we seem to keep doing what we can to make things better. I'd think that if those days were so good, we'd do what we could to prevent progress.

The resource example in a room makes little sense imo. There is not a finite amount of wealth in the world. It grows, contracts, and switches hands. Also in this mythical room where wealth is finite. If 1 person owns 50% of the wealth what does that get them anyways? A pile of mythical wealth? Cant eat it, cant drink it. Have to purchase a real resource with that wealth if they want to survive.

Really? Wealth can be infinite?
It ends up getting tied to some tangible thing at some point. Why else would you want it in the first place? You can buy power and influence, buy services, or buy physical goods. I don't make money because I like seeing a number on a computer screen get bigger. That's what computer games are for. (And even then, the tangible benefit is the fun of playing the game.)
I can't buy an infinite amount of stuff, nor will I live for an infinite amount of time, nor is the planet itself infinite in size. Yes, it is limited.

The question I always ask - which usually gets ignored - is about the end effect of inequality. If I get an answer at all, it's usually a snarky answer such as "Boohoo, Richie Rich can't buy another gold plated yacht." But then on the flip side, what would the middle and lower classes have with a smaller wealth disparity that they don't have now? Would lower disparity result in less offshoring? Would the lower class suddenly become investors? Would they become entrepreneurs and start new companies? What do see as the end goal of reducing wealth disparity? More plastic stuff for everyone?

The end effect of inequality, the real problem, is control over other people.
If someone buys a GE microwave, it's because they want to warm up food, not because they want to help GE buy government favors.
If those with a lot of wealth, and thereby access to special treatment, also control the factors of production, they have an enormous amount of control over people. Example: Aluminum and copper. Goldman Sachs owns warehouses that shuffle around aluminum. Three banks also wanted to buy 80% of the copper on the market. These banks are also free to trade in commodities markets. So they have the warehouses, they have the goods, and they can see shifts in consumption as it's happening and they can make trades based on that information. I'm sure that'll benefit society at large.

Another example of power disparity or concentration: A monopoly in business. We (allegedly) have laws which are there to prevent this because of the problems it can cause.
Types of monopoly:
- They keep prices high and enrich themselves considerably that way. This can be risky though, since the high prices can mean that others will find it sufficiently profitable to try to enter the market.
- They keep prices low. The short-term revenue might not be as good, but no one will bother trying to enter the market when they simply have no chance of turning a profit, thus securing the monopoly's position long-term.
- The ideal mix: Keep prices high most of the time, but when a competitor does show up, drop prices to push them out of business and then raise prices again.

 

[ralfy]

Because there's no evidence that inequality is the cause of the economic collapse. False is a very simple word to understand. I suggest that if you don't understand the concepts of True and False, you're not equipped to discuss more complex topics.

What, then, is the cause of the 2008 crash?

 

[ralfy]

My bank account is a number stored on a server somewhere. Same with my retirement accounts and savings bonds. The value isn't stored in gold bullion or some other shiny metal or fancy gemstones. The numbers on the computers say that I have some level of purchasing power.

That's why financial capital easily increased, with much of it concentrated among a few. The value of that capital is also based on material resources and energy needed to make goods or provide services that are part of that purchasing power. If there is a lack of both, then the value of that capital decreases.

 

[Subyman]

That's why financial capital easily increased, with much of it concentrated among a few. The value of that capital is also based on material resources and energy needed to make goods or provide services that are part of that purchasing power. If there is a lack of both, then the value of that capital decreases.

Yeah, I don't think people understand what value is. Value is created by not selling. The stock market isn't really backed by trillions of dollars, its backed by the relatively small amount of stocks that are traded per day. Value is created by the tiny amount of product or service that is sold per time relative to the vast amount that is held. That is why value disappears during a crash, when everyone wants to cash out and why we could no longer have a gold backed system. We couldn't get gold fast enough to grow the economy and if we inflated the price of gold, then we only made gold-holding countries richer while doing all the work.

 

[nickqt]

Yeah, I don't think people understand what value is. Value is created by not selling. The stock market isn't really backed by trillions of dollars, its backed by the relatively small amount of stocks that are traded per day. Value is created by the tiny amount of product or service that is sold per time relative to the vast amount that is held. That is why value disappears during a crash, when everyone wants to cash out and why we could no longer have a gold backed system. We couldn't get gold fast enough to grow the economy and if we inflated the price of gold, then we only made gold-holding countries richer while doing all the work.

Ultimately, value can be held and has intrinsic value. Gold can be valued, but there is nothing particular about gold sans its ability to resist corrosion, that makes it valuable.

Real "wealth"/value will always be held in real estate (land), equipment, and physical control of people.

The best way to insure your wealth is to own and operate the government. Monarchies, are, in fact, private governments. A republic, in general, seeks to make government public, or at least not privately owned and operated.

 

[Paratus]

So some fun with numbers.

Global GDP 2014 ~ $77.6T
Global Population ~ 7.29B people

Distributed evenly:
$/person ~ $10,600 or
$42,500 per family of 4

Distributed as unevenly as possible :
Subsistence level is $2 per day per person
$730 per year per person,
$2920 per family of four.
$5.32T for everyone except the leader guy. Leaving:

$72.28T for the leader guy (CEO Bob for you Libertarians or Party Boss Bob for you Communists)

So what does the income distribution look like today? Towards which extreme is it moving? Which way should it be moving?

 

[glenn1]

So some fun with numbers.

Global GDP 2014 ~ $77.6T
Global Population ~ 7.29B people

Distributed evenly:
$/person ~ $10,600 or
$42,500 per family of 4

Distributed as unevenly as possible :
Subsistence level is $2 per day per person
$730 per year per person,
$2920 per family of four.
$5.32T for everyone except the leader guy. Leaving:

$72.28T for the leader guy (CEO Bob for you Libertarians or Party Boss Bob for you Communists)

So what does the income distribution look like today? Towards which extreme is it moving? Which way should it be moving?

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say instead of dollars, the medium of exchange was seeds. Some people are at subsistence level and eating any seeds as they acquire them, a smaller amount of people are farmers and using seeds to grow next year's crops, and a handful of people have "extra" seeds they're stockpiling.

Now let's say you changed the seed distribution and divided the extra seeds up equally to all, would you end up with more or less seeds next year? With the formerly productive people (farmers) having less seeds to work with and plant, would the subsistence level people all of a sudden fill the gap and start creating huge stockpiles of new "wealth" (farmed food, and the next crop of seeds in turn)?

 

[Bowfinger]

Correlation is not causation.

Again, correlation is not causation.

True, correlation does not prove causation. Neither does it disprove it. It is pretty obvious, however, that having more money gives one more and better options.

But how does that translate into standard of living, which is the only thing that really matters? In healthcare, does a smaller percentage of Americans have the absolute highest available quality of healthcare than they did 40 years ago? I would say that's probably true, but even the poor can get an MRI now, something that didn't even exist 40 years ago. So despite the fact that billionaires don't have to worry about medical bankruptcy, that doesn't mean that the poor aren't benefiting massively. I guess I just don't see wealth inequality is not the be-all-end-all measure of society that some do.

Again, I agree that both rich and poor alike have it better today than they did a long time ago. I just don't find that relevant. The issue is the here and now, not the way things were long ago and/or in other countries.

But it does match reality. The War on Poverty is an abject failure. How much money spent, and yet inequality continues to rise? One could claim that the WoP has prevented it from becoming worse. Or one could claim that the WoP has contributed to making it worse.

That is arguable. I'm not prepared to debate it, but I've read reports showing just how successful the War on Poverty has been. That has nothing to do with my point, that as the prosperity of the middle class and poor increases, their demand for government support programs decreases, assuming everything else remains constant. Clearly, we also change consumption if we change the rules on eligibility or benefit amounts. That's an interesting topic in itself, but it's irrelevant to the topic of reducing wealth inequality.

So what's your standard? I've pointed out in this forum on more than one occasion that average home size, cars per family, college graduation rate and many other metrics that could be considered as measures of standard of living have increased drastically and continue to increase since the "golden era" of postwar America. What year would you like me to compare to?

Again, you seem to be combating inequality as an evil unto itself. That smacks of emotion and greed, not logical thinking and rationality. "I don't care how much more I have now than I did yesterday, I'm mad that somebody else has more!" That's childish thinking.

Fair question, and yes, I do consider excessive concentration of wealth to be inherently bad. Historically, it has never ended well, and I see a basic issue of right and wrong. Is that an emotional reaction? I suppose, in the same sense that all ethical principles are ultimately rooted in emotion.

Is it greed? Of course it is, for many people throughout the economic spectrum. But, I'm one of the haves. I'm not sporting a private jet, but we do well, solidly upper middle class. When people talk about taxing the "rich," they also usually mean people like me ... and I'm good with that. I recognize how fortunate we are, and I'm good with helping those who are less so. I'm OK with helping to fund government, because I recognize that the reason we are all so successful is because we've leveraged the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure largely funded by government. We did build that foundation for success, but we did so collectively, not individually.

I'm not a fan of bloated government, but I do recognize a strong, effective government is the only way to keep greed in check. It's not doing that well today, which is one of the reasons we have this thread. I'm happy to see people earn great wealth, but my sense of right and wrong insists they do so fairly, not by abusing their power to corrupt markets and government. That's why I posed the question Matt was too cowardly to answer: what does "earn" mean. My contention is while much of the wealth disparity was earned legitimately, there is also much that was taken illegitimately, by using financial power to corrupt markets and regulations. In other words, some have stacked the deck. My goal is to fix that imbalance, to continue to support the generation of wealth, even tremendous wealth, through legitimate means, while eliminating the corruption.

 

[BoberFett]

Fair enough. thanks for the thoughtful reply.

 

[realibrad]

...

Define greed.

Greed to me, means wanting something at the expense of someone else. If that is how you define greed, then you are talking a zero sum world that we know does not exist.

If you define greed as wanting more for yourself, then greed can be good. Greed would only be bad if you were taking it from someone who was more deserving.

Did Elon Musk become rich by taking from others? I would say that he became rich consenting exchange. Is anyone hurt by Elon Musk being rich? I dont think so.

Is the government more influenced by the rich? God yes. Is that good? Inherently no, but not inherently bad either. If you do think its a problem, then maybe take the power from the government, and force those that aspire to become rich to do it through free exchange. The only time I have ever seen a situation where someone became super rich that did not do it through free exchange, its due to government backing. Is it the only way? Probably not. I think the government has a place in making sure 3rd parties are not harmed without consent.

Inequality is not a problem, assuming they got it through fair means. There is not a system in this world that is truly fair, and reform should be done. But, I keep seeing this idea that the desire to have more is bad, and that is not inherently true. When all costs are applied, then the desire to want more can create beautiful things. The problems happen when costs are not applied.

 

[OverVolt]

What makes you think they earned it? Does a poker player who stacks the deck earn his winnings? How about a lottery employee who rigs a game and collects a winning ticket? A financial adviser who skims money from customer accounts illegally? How about if that same adviser buys influence to get a law making his skimming legal? Does he then earn what he skims?

Does a mob boss earn the money he gains by controlling his territory? How about a monopolist who controls his market through financial power rather than physical coercion? How about cartel members who conspire together to control markets? Do they earn their profits? How about anyone who uses wealth or power to distort the market in their favor?

The problem is "earn" is an ambiguous word. It covers a whole spectrum of activities, from outright theft on one extreme to gaining the fruits of one's own labors in a free and open market at the other extreme. Most people have no trouble with wealth that is truly earned. The issue is wealth that comes from gaming the system or distorting the market. The wealthy's apologists ignore that issue, apparently presuming that mere possession of wealth is proof it was earned. That is an extremely naive view, at best.

If he came from nothing then he earned it. Pretty simple. Modern day 2015 the risk is skewed in investing to where the rich can't lose. Thats not how it always was, and it used to be risk vs reward.

Stocks are part ownership of a corporation. You can whine and bitch how powerful corporations have become or you could have bought some shares yourself 20 years ago. It was pretty obvious post 2008 that small businesses were raising prices due to the liquidity crunch and big corporations could weather it out. Who is guilty of buying a ton of boxed food circa 2009 because it was the cheapest thing to lower skyrocketing grocery bills? Ummm everyone?

 

[ralfy]

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say instead of dollars, the medium of exchange was seeds. Some people are at subsistence level and eating any seeds as they acquire them, a smaller amount of people are farmers and using seeds to grow next year's crops, and a handful of people have "extra" seeds they're stockpiling.

Now let's say you changed the seed distribution and divided the extra seeds up equally to all, would you end up with more or less seeds next year? With the formerly productive people (farmers) having less seeds to work with and plant, would the subsistence level people all of a sudden fill the gap and start creating huge stockpiles of new "wealth" (farmed food, and the next crop of seeds in turn)?

Another object should probably be considered because in this example seeds are used not only as a medium of exchange but consumed.

The interesting thing about the use of money is that in order for someone to have more money to save based on profits, spending has to go up (he has to sell at a higher price or sell more products with the same fixed cost).

And in order to earn from money saved, it has to be invested in businesses that will use it to produce and sell more. For that to happen, spending has to go up as well.

 

[ralfy]

Yeah, I don't think people understand what value is. Value is created by not selling. The stock market isn't really backed by trillions of dollars, its backed by the relatively small amount of stocks that are traded per day. Value is created by the tiny amount of product or service that is sold per time relative to the vast amount that is held. That is why value disappears during a crash, when everyone wants to cash out and why we could no longer have a gold backed system. We couldn't get gold fast enough to grow the economy and if we inflated the price of gold, then we only made gold-holding countries richer while doing all the work.

Some more points to consider:

Stock gains can take place through high-frequency trading, but in other markets various instruments such as derivatives may be employed.

Also, the trillions of dollars themselves are hardly backed by anything.

Finally, as mentioned earlier gold has little practical value except as a medium of exchange.

 

[realibrad]

Some more points to consider:

Stock gains can take place through high-frequency trading, but in other markets various instruments such as derivatives may be employed.

Also, the trillions of dollars themselves are hardly backed by anything.

Finally, as mentioned earlier gold has little practical value except as a medium of exchange.

Gold is used in electronics, solar panels, it has medical uses. The reason its not used more, is because it has a high value in other uses which pushes up the price. If it were not desired for its looks or as an investment tool, it would be used far more often. Gold has a very large practical value. It would be incorrect to state otherwise.

Also, gold is more of an investment, and less of a medium of exchange. With the way trading is now done, its done more often, but I would still not call it a medium of exchange, unless you define all goods as one.

 

[ralfy]

Gold is used in electronics, solar panels, it has medical uses. The reason its not used more, is because it has a high value in other uses which pushes up the price. If it were not desired for its looks or as an investment tool, it would be used far more often. Gold has a very large practical value. It would be incorrect to state otherwise.

Also, gold is more of an investment, and less of a medium of exchange. With the way trading is now done, its done more often, but I would still not call it a medium of exchange, unless you define all goods as one.

By "practical" I mean situations involving oil shortages, financial crises, and natural disasters brought about by global warming. In these cases, gold will likely be used as a medium of exchange rather than as a resource to be used directly. For electronics, solar panels, and medical equipment, fuel for manufacturing and transport, petrochemicals, copper, iron ore, and other resources will be more important.

Finally, gold is seen as an investment only as long as paper money is still seen as more useful. (That is, gold is sold at a higher price in exchange for paper money.)