This is really a reply to Paul`s comment about 16th-century Spain and gold in [url=http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12197]this thread[/url] which is currently discussing the prospect of mining asteroids for precious metals:

[QUOTE=xilman;297382]In which case, you should study what happened to the Spanish economy in the 16th century, an event from which it still hasn't recovered.[/QUOTE]

Or to the UK [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling]in the last century[/url], again an event (or sequence of events) from which the nation in question has never recovered:

[quote]The gold standard was suspended at the outbreak of the war in 1914, with Bank of England and Treasury notes becoming legal tender. Prior to World War I, the United Kingdom had one of the world's strongest economies, holding 40% of the world's overseas investments. However, by the end of the war the country owed £850 million (£30.7 billion as of 2012),[14] mostly to the United States, with interest costing the country some 40% of all government spending. In an attempt to resume stability, a variation on the gold standard was reintroduced in 1925, under which the currency was fixed to gold at its pre-war peg, although people were only able to exchange their currency for gold bullion, rather than for coins. This was abandoned on 21 September 1931, during the Great Depression, and sterling suffered an initial devaluation of some 25%.[15][/quote]
Keynesian economists love to point to the above as an example of why a hard-money standard cannot work in "modern finance", which is probably true, but not for the reason (hard-money = bad) they claim. Rather, since "modern finance" is really a euphemism for Ponzi economics based on exponential debt expansion with ever-accumulating promises to pay in some mythical future which never arrives, except in the sense of the scam ultimately collapsing under the weight of its own excesses. That ill-fated attempt by the debt-ridden UK to reintroduce a hard-money standard after a decade of war-related printing of much more 'money' (by way of war-related debt) than there was 'hard' to back it up ran smack into supply and demand issues. And alas, by that point in the UK`s trajectory of empire, there was no more easy wealth which could simply be plundered from diverse colonies to pay the bills at home, at least not on any scale remotely close to covering the costs of WWI.

The US 'leadership' would do well to heed the lessons in the demise of many such great empires, all of which eventually over-extended themselves in their effort to maintain and extend said empire - but having a short memory is apparently an inevitable aspect of imperial hubris, so I am quite confident the lessons will remain unheeded. In a thousand years I expect history will write about the rapid ascendancy of the US 'empire' (one different in many ways from traditional historic ones, but in economic and military terms, clearly fitting the term) and the similarly-rapid decline, and perhaps note that this particular empire's rise and fall both took place in less time than "the decline and fall of Rome", which stretched over multiple centuries, but was at least preceded by a similarly long heyday.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;297473]This is really a reply to Paul`s comment about 16th-century Spain and gold in [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11224"]this thread[/URL] which is currently discussing the prospect of mining asteroids for precious metals:[/QUOTE]I think you meant [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12197"]this thread[/URL] instead of that one.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;297473]This is really a reply to Paul`s comment about 16th-century Spain and gold in [url=http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12197]this thread[/url] which is currently discussing the prospect of mining asteroids for precious metals:

Or to the UK [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling]in the last century[/url], again an event (or sequence of events) from which the nation in question has never recovered:[/QUOTE]True, but the British case is the inverse of the Spanish example. Spain had a grotesque over-supply of gold and silver in the period in question and, I submit, more relevant to the scenario which would arise if asteroid mining became particularly successful.

That said, the pound sterling was defined to be the value of one pound of silver something over a thousand years ago. It doesn't take too many GBP to purchase that amount of metal today. Not many currencies can point to such a low rate of inflation.

I don't see people mining asteroids for the coinage metals for their monetary value; but I think there are some real advantages on Earth if you have ready access to the ruthenium-rhodium-palladium-osmium-iridium-platinum metals, because they let you make really awesome turbine-blade alloys. Very dense, but amazingly strong, and able to operate hot enough that you can get several percent more thermodynamic efficiency in your fuel-burning power stations and your jet engines.

Macroscopic quantities of rhenium and of platinum-group elements are already used in superalloys for military jet engines; the TMS-162 superalloy is by weight 6% ruthenium, 4.9% rhenium, 0.1% hafnium, 5.8% tungsten, 5.6% tantalum, 5.8% aluminium, 3.9% molybdenum, 5.8% cobalt, 2.9% chromium, and the other 59.2% nickel.

Obviously metallurgy of palladium-based alloys is an exercise for the rich, and it may be that the entire thing is a dead-end once the technology is developed to manufacture silicon-nitride ceramic components in appropriate size.

[QUOTE=fivemack;297550]I don't see people mining asteroids for the coinage metals for their monetary value; but I think there are some real advantages on Earth if you have ready access to the ruthenium-rhodium-palladium-osmium-iridium-platinum metals, because they let you make really awesome turbine-blade alloys. Very dense, but amazingly strong, and able to operate hot enough that you can get several percent more thermodynamic efficiency in your fuel-burning power stations and your jet engines.

Macroscopic quantities of rhenium and of platinum-group elements are already used in superalloys for military jet engines; the TMS-162 superalloy is by weight 6% ruthenium, 4.9% rhenium, 0.1% hafnium, 5.8% tungsten, 5.6% tantalum, 5.8% aluminium, 3.9% molybdenum, 5.8% cobalt, 2.9% chromium, and the other 59.2% nickel.

Obviously metallurgy of palladium-based alloys is an exercise for the rich, and it may be that the entire thing is a dead-end once the technology is developed to manufacture silicon-nitride ceramic components in appropriate size.[/QUOTE]

And of course catalytic converters.....

It might be worth going after KREEP based ores.

It really isn't worth going after KREEP. Some iron meteorites have platinum-group elements in quantities a small factor higher than decent platinum ores; KREEP has lanthanides in quantities an order of magnitude or so lower than ion-exchange-clay ores on Earth (see [url]http://www.rareearthelements.us/lunar_kreep[/url] )

It's less glamorous to dismantle used hard disc drives or to mine interesting clay deposits in California or Western Australia than to fly to the Moon, but cheaper and more effective if what you want is neodymium.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;297558]And of course catalytic converters.....

It might be worth going after KREEP based ores.[/QUOTE]Might be, if you can make a convincing case that such metals are likely to be found in high enough concentrations.

The name "Rare Earth Elements" is a misnomer. Most of them, with the obvious exception of Pm, are actually rather common. The major reason for their apparent scarcity is the paradoxical situation that they are ubiquitous. They are everywhere in low concentration but relatively rarely found in high concentration ores. The most common in the earth's crust, Ce, is about as rare as copper. All of them (again, excluding Pm) are more common than mercury and silver, neither of which are regarded as being particularly rare metals.

Trivia: a good proportion of my time as a grad student was subliming Ce[sub]2[/sub]O[sub]3[/sub] and examining the properties of the CeO gas produced. Most of the rest of the time was spent boiling copper and studying the Cu[sub]2[/sub] molecule.

[QUOTE=xilman;297568]Might be, if you can make a convincing case that such metals are likely to be found in high enough concentrations.

The name "Rare Earth Elements" is a misnomer. Most of them, with the obvious exception of Pm, are actually rather common. The major reason for their apparent scarcity is the paradoxical situation that they are ubiquitous. They are everywhere in low concentration but relatively rarely found in high concentration ores. The most common in the earth's crust, Ce, is about as rare as copper. All of them (again, excluding Pm) are more common than mercury and silver, neither of which are regarded as being particularly rare metals.
[/QUOTE]

And they are goddamn difficult to separate! (pardon my choice of words)

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;297579]And they are goddamn difficult to separate! (pardon my choice of words)[/QUOTE]

Another vitally important industrial technology in which the US was not that ago the world leader, until short-term cost-savings considerations unclouded by long-term "you do realize the dangers of sole-sourcing this overseas, don't you" thinking led to abandonment of domestic production. Note that said offshoring was aided by the environmental and labor-law arbitrage which decades of 'free' trade mania have encouraged - why develop cleaner, more efficient production methods when you can simply offshore your 60s-era manufacturing-pollution problems to China?

Encouragingly, a few US corporations like [url=http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molycorp&sa=U&ei=N_KaT-zQEqSeiAKd75WVDg&ved=0CBIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHW-rH8xEqg-_3BrKLKkysCoCUbTg]Molycorp[/url] are making a go at renewed domestic mining and refining. Interestingly, they apparently needed no Solyndra-style government subsidy to do so. "It's called capitalism - perhaps we should consider trying it some time."

---------------------

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/us-usa-housing-negative-idUSBRE83P12E20120426?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews]Reuters: Falling home prices drag new buyers under water[/url]: [i]More than 1 million Americans who have taken out mortgages in the past two years now owe more on their loans than their homes are worth, and Federal Housing Administration loans that require only a tiny down payment are partly to blame.[/i]
[quote]That figure, provided to Reuters by tracking firm CoreLogic, represents about one out of 10 home loans made during that period.

It is a sobering indication the U.S. housing market remains deeply troubled, with home values still falling in many parts of the country, and raises the question of whether low-down payment loans backed by the FHA are putting another generation of buyers at risk.

As of December 2011, the latest figures available, 31 percent of the U.S. home loans that were in negative equity - in which the outstanding loan balance exceeds the value of the home - were FHA-insured mortgages, according to CoreLogic.

Many borrowers, particularly since late 2010, thought they were buying at the bottom of a housing market that had already suffered steep declines, but have been caught out by a continued fall in prices in wide swaths of America.

Even for loans taken out in December - less than four months ago and the last month for which data is available - nearly 44,000 borrowers, or about 7.5 percent of the total, now find themselves under water.[/quote]
Note these are *recent* loans. So, apparently we (or at least the bubble-blowers in government) learned nothing from the Great Housing Bubble and global finacial crisis it was inextricably entwined with.

But compared to the (not unexpected by us) ever-worsening headlines out of Europe, the above sounds downright rosy - Headlines and brief snips for 2 Mish pieces today:

[url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/04/depression-in-spain-unemployment-rate.html]Depression in Spain: Unemployment Rate Up .5 Percentage Points to 23.6%; Expect Much Higher Rates Later This Year; When is the Breaking Point?[/url]
[quote]It is difficult to know precisely when Spanish unemployment stops going up. I see no reason it cannot hit 28% or even 30%.

Spanish politicians (for now) remain insanely committed to the Euro. How long the citizens remain committed to the Eurozone is another matter.

[b]When is the Breaking Point?[/b]

Will the general population of Spain put up with an unemployment rate of 28%? 30%? I think not, but I do not know the precise breaking point. Whatever it is, Spain has little chance for growth prospects for a decade as long as it remains in the eurozone.

Eventually will come a time when a politician will hold up a copy of the EMU treaty, declare it null and void, and the debt null and void right along with it. That politician will be elected.

Spain will be better off as soon as that happens.[/quote]

[url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/04/eurozone-retail-sales-plunge-at.html]Eurozone Retail Sales Plunge at Strongest Pace Since Late-2008; German Retail Sales Plunge Into Contraction; French Retail Sales Plunge at Record Pace; Record Job Losses, Record Retail Plunge in Italy[/url]
[quote]The word of the day is plunge. Retail sales fell like a rock in Germany and fell at a record pace in France. Jobs and retail sales plunged at a record pace in Italy, and in general, did a nose-dive across the entire Eurozone.

[From the Markit analysis of the French retail sector]
[i]
Panelists are nevertheless optimistic that sales will exceed previously set plans in May.

Factors expected by retailers to boost sales over the coming three months include the end of the presidential election, summer weather, promotions and new products.
[/i][/quote]
The optimistic panelists forgot to add "...and rainbow-colored flying unicorns blanketing the Eurozone and pooping shiny new Euro coins and Skittles candies out of their butts."


[b]Friday Humour[/b] [Our headline-writing staff is feeling British today, old bean.]

[url=www.zerohedge.com/news/now-we-know-where-all-greek-bank-deposits-have-gone]Now We Know Where All The Greek Bank Deposits Have Gone[/url]

This adds new meaning to "investing for the long term". Some of the reader comments - especially the bookshop joke - are priceless.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;297579]And they are goddamn difficult to separate! (pardon my choice of words)[/QUOTE]Yes and no. Traditionally that was the case but technology has moved on markedly in the last century.

If you want difficult, try separating hafnium from zirconium, or tungsten from oxygen.

More trivia: as a grad student I discovered I was a natural tungsten bender, a useful skill if you're working with high temperature furnaces as you don't have to rely on, and wait for, lab technicians.

Pure W is as flexible as copper and very easy to work. Pure W is [i]extremely[/i] hard to make and [i]extremely[/i] expensive. Commercial tungsten contains around 1% oxygen which is (a) is extremely difficult to remove and (b) makes the metal very brittle. Heating tungsten wire to the point where it is almost but not quite red-hot makes it reasonably malleable. Heating it to red-heat makes it brittle again, and effectively irreversibly so because it extracts yet more oxygen from the air. The skill lies in heating it to just the right temperature. Knowing when it is the correct temperature depends not on appearance but on the "feel" of the wire. As the saying goes; for those who understand no explanation is necessary; for those who do not understand no explanation is possible. Some have the gift and some do not. Unfortunately, being a skilled tungsten bender is not an easily marketable skill.

[QUOTE=xilman;297639]More trivia: as a grad student I discovered I was a natural tungsten bender, a useful skill if you're working with high temperature furnaces as you don't have to rely on, and wait for, lab technicians.

Pure W is as flexible as copper and very easy to work. Pure W is [i]extremely[/i] hard to make and [i]extremely[/i] expensive. Commercial tungsten contains around 1% oxygen which is (a) is extremely difficult to remove and (b) makes the metal very brittle. Heating tungsten wire to the point where it is almost but not quite red-hot makes it reasonably malleable. Heating it to red-heat makes it brittle again, and effectively irreversibly so because it extracts yet more oxygen from the air. The skill lies in heating it to just the right temperature. Knowing when it is the correct temperature depends not on appearance but on the "feel" of the wire. As the saying goes; for those who understand no explanation is necessary; for those who do not understand no explanation is possible. Some have the gift and some do not. Unfortunately, being a skilled tungsten bender is not an easily marketable skill.[/QUOTE]

If you ever needed a German-name alias reflecting your skills, you could go by "Wolfram Bieger".

As we're also speaking of precious metals, W is finding plenty of use these days as filler for fake (or partly gold-removed) gold bullion bars, due to its density being very close to that of Au. If one were to coat a properly shaped W core with (say) 1-2mm of Au, I wonder how the resulting fake might be detected nondestructively. Even the common expedient of shaving/filing a small bit off or testing the softness with a hard-metal imprint would be fooled by the outer coating. Of course human greed often makes such sophistication in fakery needless - here in the SF bay area there is some (still at-large) fellow who has been conning elderly folks out of large sums of money by selling them fake gold bars consisting of nothing more than a gray construction brick - the lightweight pebbly-surface kind, to boot - spray-painted with gold colored paint. They showed one of the actual bricks he had used to scam some local person on the news the other night - hilarious.