SSDR wrote:Yes many people feel that flowers do look nicer than gold. So why is gold more valuable?
Same reason anything is valuable: its combination of scarcity (supply) and utility (demand).
Because the ELITES know that gold can't be grown, so they're taking advantage of that.
<sigh> Sand can't be grown either. Why didn't the elites choose sand?
Your ignorance of economics appears to be comprehensive.
You see how it's not about what the majority feel, it's about how the elites feel.
Value is not about how the majority feels, or how elites feel. It is ONLY about how the two people who want the item most feel.
Gold is more rare than flowers because gold can't be grown like how flowers can.
Gold can be mined. It's scarcer because it is much harder to mine gold than to grow flowers.
In a non socialist economy, the more rare something is, the more it's valued.
Wrong again. Only one whelk in 4 million has a left-handed shell spiral. You don't see anyone bidding up the prices of left-handed whelks, do you?
You clearly do not know even the most basic facts of economics.
But in socialism, no matter how rare a material or a natural/artificial resource is, it would not be valued more or less because in socialism, the concept of value doesn't need to exist.
That is why socialism will always fail spectacularly: no one will be able to figure out what should be produced. Socialists could as easily expend their labor and capital looking for left-handed whelks as growing flowers -- or food.
Not in socialism.
Yes, in socialism.
Socialism operates very differently than capitalism because there is no currency. The concepts of debt, value, credit, and exchange does not exist.
Dreaming. There is no production without value, no division of labor without exchange.
And nothing is demanded on a consumer viewpoint because nothing is made to be sold.
So although left-handed whelks taste the same as right-handed ones, the workers can just decide they'd rather throw the right-handed ones away.
In a socialist economy, if there was no gold left, the socialist economy wouldn't be destroyed because nothing is economically valued.
A capitalist economy would not be destroyed in the absence of gold either. But a socialist economy would be destroyed no matter what the gold situation, because without value, no one would know what to produce.
Without excelling imaginations, we wouldn't have automobiles, locomotives, aircraft, spacecraft, factories, nor advanced military equipment.
Logic is not exactly your strong suit, is it?