Adam Smith  <<"Their [precious metals] highest price, however, seems not to
be necessarily determined by anything but the actual *scarcity* or plenty of
those metals themselves">>

Really?  Here are a few simple facts

In 1776, the year Wealth of Nations was published, the quantity of silver
delivered to the mint in England be struck into coin, free of any
seigniorage charges, was zero.  Not one ounce.  Only gold was struck.  

In that same year, 119,760 troy pounds of silver was hallmarked in England
for plate.

A century later, after mint policy throughout the Occident fell in line with
that in England, the silver price against gold fell from 15:1 to 35:1.

Is it not then obvious that these prices have very little to do with either
scarcity nor utility?  Gold was of almost no use to most of the population
as a circulating medium, it is far too valuable.  

I suggest

1) The principle determining factor behind the price of precious metals was
not scarcity nor utility but politics.

2) These political decisions seem to be determined, in  England in 1776, not
by utility, but by the very opposite, the lack of utility (of gold)

3)  The most promising avenue of research open here would be psychological
and sociological deconstruction of the misguided opinions of two men, John
Locke and Adam Smith.

Sadly response to my previous mails on related topics prompts me to believe
that I have no common understandings at all with either orthodox or
heterodox economists posting here, (aside from one who has corresponded in
private).  Thus it seems sensible that I cease to do so.  I would be please
to get (off group) suggestions as to any alternative active arenas of
discussion.

Rob Tye, York UK