81–90 of 119 posts
This is super interesting. Does anyone familiar with the subject matter have an idea why?
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is my preferred introduction. Critically this New Yorker account is missing the word 'usury' which was largely agreed to be evil by early religions and societies that experienced its effects...
So if gold is the only real money (and everything else is just debt)... What does gold’s year-long rally this year tell us?
I'd say about the same as what the inverted yield curves say (i.e. the rally on long term, high quality bonds). That the market expects growth to tighten: The Economist | Curveball https://www.economist.com/node/21767839 Gold is not "the only real money", though. There is no such thing as "real money": > Law thought that the important thing about money wasn’t its inherent value; he didn’t believe it had any. “Money i…
You know what they say: Inverted yield curves have predicted 10 of the last 7 recessions.
paper titles by themselves are quite old. the real innovation is to split them in smaller, standardized denominations to be composed into the desired amount, which came with the first travel cheques. the only jump from there to bills is that one come from and it's backed by private entities and the other come backed by a state, but in the case of the argentarii and mensiarii the line is blurred since those were state sanctioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is gold more real than debt? To me debt is far superior. Debt means you have a commitment from a human (directly or indirectly, if the debt is owed by an organization). Gold has no inherent value at all apart from some minor uses of relatively small amounts in the economy. Except by agreement, which debt also has. An example for debt-based I once read somewhere was a kid writing an IOU for garden work. As long as…
>Gold has no inherent value at all apart from some minor uses of relatively small amounts in the economy. I've never understood this argument that gold has no inherent value or no use in economy. First, lets acknowledge you couldn't even make your comment/post from any computer/smart phone on the market that doesn't use gold. That is gold is a great conductor of electricity, maybe not the best conductor, but when com…
But commodity standards in general are not preferred by governments. You could even make an argument that forgoing fiat currency is a national security risk. Countries which use fiat money can conduct warfare more efficiently. And in peacetime they can conduct counter-cyclical monetary policy.
These key advantages make fiat the obvious choice for governments.
So if gold is the only real money (and everything else is just debt)... What does gold’s year-long rally this year tell us?
How is gold more real than debt? To me debt is far superior. Debt means you have a commitment from a human (directly or indirectly, if the debt is owed by an organization). Gold has no inherent value at all apart from some minor uses of relatively small amounts in the economy. Except by agreement, which debt also has. An example for debt-based I once read somewhere was a kid writing an IOU for garden work. As long as…
Jewellery. 2200 tons last year. Was popular 3000 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Tutankhamun) and will probably be in 3000 more. Try getting the wife a plastic wedding ring if you think it has no value.
I daresay that's different from saying it's any good as money.
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is my preferred introduction. Critically this New Yorker account is missing the word 'usury' which was largely agreed to be evil by early religions and societies that experienced its effects...
"Debt: The First 5,000 Years" is a book length op-ed. It's not useful with respect to economic history.
Could you please suggest good books about economic history. I'm looking to expand my knowledge in that domain.
So if gold is the only real money (and everything else is just debt)... What does gold’s year-long rally this year tell us?
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is my preferred introduction. Critically this New Yorker account is missing the word 'usury' which was largely agreed to be evil by early religions and societies that experienced its effects...
"Debt: The First 5,000 Years" is a book length op-ed. It's not useful with respect to economic history.
A few takeaways I have from that book: 1) In rural/traditional societies, debt (measured and stored in people's heads) and other reciprocal social obligations were enough to run an economy. Simple example: you give your neighbor some grain when the harvest comes, and you neighbor repairs your tools the whole year long. The classic economy-textbook idea that we invented currency so we don't have to barter with the goods we produce has never been observed in history. 2) Governments induce the creation of currency. Any government can change the currency by requiring the repayment of taxes in that new currency. Often this is for the purposes of paying armies. 3) Traveling merchants need to use currency because they can't rely on social obligations at each place along where they travel. Money allows anonymity.
"Before long, the banknotes were trading at more than their value in silver, and Law was made Controller General of Finances, in charge of the entire French economy." This is super interesting. Does anyone familiar with the subject matter have an idea why?
>The wars waged by Louis XIV left the country completely wasted, both economically and financially. The resultant shortage of precious metals led to a shortage of coins in circulation, which in turn limited the production of new coins.
So there may have been a short supply of money especially the metal variety. Someone selling say grain may have taken paper money representing not much silver because there were no alternative buyers with bags of silver available.
Bitcoin also trades for a lot despite not having much value because some people want them and there aren't many available.