Was supposed to say the same thing and this had been an argument or discussion ever since about replacing this, replacing that without even trying to check or look
on what are their true usage or benefits in the first place.Why would really be needing that on replacing each other? They do have indeed their own purpose
and just literally trying to differentiate when it comes to form and characteristics then its just too obvious that there no point on making out some comparison
or some sort of competition.
All these conversations take place only within the framework of discussions on the topic, and what would happen if something happened and has not even close to any relation to the harsh reality on what are their true usage or benefits in the first place.Why would really be needing that on replacing each other? They do have indeed their own purpose
and just literally trying to differentiate when it comes to form and characteristics then its just too obvious that there no point on making out some comparison
or some sort of competition.
Gold has a multi-thousand-year history of circulation in the financial sphere and it is extremely naive to assume that some other object or concept will replace it in the near future. You can still somehow talk about parallel use, but it is about replacing gold with something that is out of the question.