The USSR picked winners well enough to be the most powerful nation on Earth, well enough to embarrass the also-ran United States in the space race and well enough to defeat them in proxy wars. If you think they were unlucky then imagine what they could do by picking winners and being lucky!

Do you believe that is true for all new technologies which don't provide 100% of the benefits of the former technology at a lower cost? I don't believe that's true. That wouldn't comport with my experiences with new technologies.

Also, much money has been made by selling status symbols.

Is the link he provided not good enough?

Governments are incredibly good at picking winners. Government does a much better job of it than, say, the market does.

No, they don't, except in the fantasies of nutters.

The patentability of software only applies when it is run on a computer. If you never run it on the physical object of a computer, then you can't violate its patent.

I got a Flamebait for that comment? That's a bullshit mod right there.

Carve out twenty minutes to listen to it again. They specifically address your points, such as whether gold "just made it" or whether it was "destined to make it as the only good choice". They come down on the latter conclusion.

Diamonds aren't malleable nor (easily) divisible nor can they be recombined.

There are lots and lots of characteristics that make a good commodity store of value. Gold has a heck of a lot of them, not just one or two.

No, there are not a lot of other really great substances we could have chosen.

But you are right about one thing, we didn't choose gold for the industrial properties, unless you count the making of jewelry.

Mmm hmm. And most gun owners are responsible like that, perhaps such a large majority that gun control is mostly unnecessary. Perhaps. But we don't have laws only for the majority who use dangerous things in a safe way, we also have laws to keep the jackass minority from fucking it up for the rest of us. It's a balance. In my opinion we are currently a little bit out of balance and I think we could get into a better balance with some minor efforts around the edges.

For instance, making it illegal to market deadly firearms to children (this, shockingly, is not already the law); requiring insurance against the mis-use of a gun (which would incentivize people to use locks without having government agents knocking on your door); and offering firearm classes in public schools (like we used to with rifles, except expand that to handguns as well). Also I don't think we need a "ban" on assault rifles but I'd like them to be kept at armories (private gun clubs) instead of in homes where suicidal asshole children of nutters can't grab them for a quick bit of ultraviolence before they kill themselves.

I am totally right and you are totally wrong. Wherever gun control has been effective, gun deaths (and violence) have reduced substantially -- every single time, 100% success, with zero failures -- ineffective gun control notwithstanding.

Does that make gun-ownership-reduction a "Good" policy for the United States? Statistics don't answer that question, but they do answer the question of whether it would "work" to reduce gun violence.

Platinum is the second most appropriate metal for value storage, according to the podcast. The characteristics that make it less good than gold are that it is more rare, perhaps too rare to be a useful currency; that it has a melting point too high for pre-industrial societies to make use of it; and that it looks too much like other non-precious metals, whereas gold is "obviously" gold.

"Otherwise, what's the point?"

Murder, presumably, or more specifically assassination.

"Really ?? Haven't seen any whales at the local fishin' hole."

I don't know you, but my guess is that's because you don't live near the ocean. Where I previously lived, in Juneau, Alaska, there were whales in the local fishing hole. Now I live in Madison, Wisconsin, and there are no whales in the local fishing hole.

You're pretty sure? Well I'm pretty sure you didn't listen to the podcast. They cover iridium (too rare) and copper (not rare enough). There are other important characteristics too, such as melting point and testability. In the end they qualify gold as the only element left standing as the best precious metal for trade.

"But you're right, we do think so little of mass shootings that we refuse to regulate the access to firearms."

It's disingenuous of you to focus on 100 deaths when gun regulation would affect all gun deaths, not just mass shootings. It would probably affect mass shootings less than other gun deaths. There are a hell of a lot more than 100 gun deaths per year, plus much more still carnage wrought short of death.

Nevertheless you are totally right about the cost-benefit analysis, notwithstanding being wrong about the costs of widespread gun ownership.