OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

[DataNinja]

Wow, I was never quite sure if the US was still using pennies or not, good to know. Now I just need to keep straight how long ago it was when we stopped using them.

I coulda sworn it was 2015, but, no. Apparently back in 2013...

(Also, it's fun going down to the States when visiting elderly relatives and bringing along toonies and plastic bills to show them and their friends. "What? This is actual money? You're joking, right?")

[Erys]

Silver and gold HAVE no intrinsic value though. It was already value by fiat. The only things with intrinsic value are necessities to live.

Negative.

Silver and gold are absolutely intrinsic. They have value in and of themselves and do not need a law to require you to use them as currency. People figured that out long ago because they serve all the essential requirements of money.

So unless you want to trade primarily in bushels of wheat, you'll need some level of abstraction and fiat in your currency.

Except food spoils... so it is no good as money.

You need no level of fiat money to have a thriving economy. IMHO, any who say otherwise are either the ones profiting the most from the shenanigans or those taught by those same people.

(See: the collapse of the Roman gold/silver currency during the Crisis of the third century, when hyperinflation due to insufficient gold for the size of the economy caused the imperial government to start collecting taxes in kind: shirts, wheat, bricklaying quotas, etc)

GW

This is not entirely true though... inflation/hyper inflation happened because the currency was being debased by those in charge of preserving it. I.e.: chipping coins so people lost faith in said economy.

Had they not done that in a greedy attempt to create more wealth for themselves... Rome may not have suffered as it did. But greed and politics, sadly, go hand in hand... true today as it was two thousand years ago.

Eh, metal-based currency is also subject to inflation. (The Spanish went bankrupt after conquering and looting the Americas in the 1500-1600s, partly due to inflation caused by a massive influx of gold. High military spending was the rest of the reason.)

If your currency is linked to gold, its value is based on the amount of gold available in the world - a rather arbitrary number, as gold has no intrinsic value ( compared to other metals it's not very useful, which is what made it a good currency) If your currency isn't linked to any metal its value is based on other people's/nations' confidence that you'll pay back your debts.

True! Spain suffered horrible inflation with the influx of "new money" into the system. Not much different than how fiat money ruins economies by printing new money.

Confidence is very arbitrary.

Gold/silver is stable largely because you can only pull some much out of the ground at a time. Unless you steal another countries gold, prices should only vary based on supply and demand.

Indeed. These days, the entirety of the gold known to exist on Earth (170000 tons - about 7 billion dollars) is obviously insufficient to cover anywhere near the needs of the US market. Heck, Apple alone has cash reserves larger than that... by two orders of magnitude.

GW

That presented value is based on fiat figures. If gold was the world currency (again) golds value would simply be higher. For something today that cost an ounce of gold (about $1200) would cost maybe half an ounce, or even a hundredth of an ounce.

There is always enough gold.

And, since buying power tends to increase with gold because its limited, it encourages saving money. Whereas fiat money encourages spending it quickly since any money saved might not get you as much a year from now as it does today.

This does make things like Bitcoin interesting, as I believe the Bitcoin supply increases at a fixed, constant rate, which I think would be a new currency phenomenon? Curiously, Bitcoins have managed to go from virtually worthless in 2009 to over $3,000 this summer. This seems odd to me -- I'd think a currency with a steady increase in suppy would remain relatively stable, unless the increase was too low for expanded activity (I tend to imagine a fiat money supply as being like shares of stock in the country, though this doesn't work fully, such as declining prices during a recession).

Bitcoin is very interesting. The recent uptick in "value" is rather shocking to me.

I suspect its reflective of people losing 'confidence' in other fiat monies and the fact that it is not connected to a central bank (yay!)... hence a rapid expanse in activity and a raise in perceived value.

But that is just a guess.

[Clistenes]

ALL weekdays are celebrations of ancient Roman/Germanic deities:

Sunday - obvious, it's the day of the Sun, or Sunna in OotSverse (or, in christian times, the Lord).
Monday - obvious again, it's the day of the Moon, or Mani in OotSverse. In Roman languages, it's Luna's day.
Tuesday - not entirely obvious, but this is Tyr's day, also called Ziu, Ciw, Tio. In Roman languages, it's Mars' day.
Wednesday - is, as was pointed out, Wodan's day, also called Odin. In Roman languages, it's Mercur's day, as these two gods were considered equivalent.
Thursday - obviously Thor's day. In Roman languages, it's Jupiter's day, again, these two were seen as equivalent.
Friday - seems obvious but isn't. Freya is well known today as a goddess of fertility, but most historians are stating that it's Frigg's day. Frigg, also called Frija was once better known, and weirdly considered to be equivalent to Venus (it's Venus' day in Roman languages). However, some historians believe that Freya is a mythological offshoot of Frija, so both goddesses might actually be the same.
Saturday - was the day of the ancient Roman god Saturn, and I really have no clue why there wasn't a germanic god(dess) to take care of that day.

About Friday, I think it is derived from Fríða, meaning "beloved, beautiful" which was another name for Freya, but probably for Frigga too... Freya and Frigga probably were two versions of the same goddess worshipped in two different regions that diverged enough to become two different goddesses. Freya's husband was Óðr (Od), which is one of the names of Odin, the husband of Frigga...

About Saturn, the germanic people took the roman names for the days and replaced the gods with their own, but they couldn't find a god that was similar enough to Saturn:

Day of the Sun = Day of the Sun = Sunday

Day of the Moon = Day of the Moon = Monday

Day of Mercury = Mmmmm... god of messengers? Hermod, maybe? But also guide of dead souls? Odin/Woden takes the souls of brave warriors to Valhalla, so Day of Woden, it is! = Wednesday

Day of Mars = God of war? Day of Tiwaz! = Tuesday

Day of Jupiter = God of thunder, powerful and sexual... Thor! = Thursday

Day of Venus = Goddess of Love... Frida! = Friday

Day of Saturn = God of the harvest... Frey, maybe? But he is also god of time and old age, and he is old... Frey is young... Father of Jupiter/Thor? Odin, maybe? But Odin already has a day, and Odin is not a god of the harvest... Eats his own children?! WTF?! I'm not touching this! I'll leave it as Day of Saturn! = Saturday

[woweedd]

About Friday, I think it is derived from Fríða, meaning "beloved, beautiful" which was another name for Freya, but probably for Frigga too... Freya and Frigga probably were two versions of the same goddess worshipped in two different regions that diverged enough to become two different goddesses. Freya's husband was Óðr (Od), which is one of the names of Odin, the husband of Frigga...

About Saturn, the germanic people took the roman names for the days and replaced the gods with their own, but they couldn't find a god that was similar enough to Saturn:

Day of the Sun = Day of the Sun = Sunday

Day of the Moon = Day of the Moon = Monday

Day of Mercury = Mmmmm... god of messengers? Hermod, maybe? But also guide of dead souls? Odin/Woden takes the souls of brave warriors to Valhalla, so Day of Woden, it is! = Wednesday

Day of Mars = God of war? Day of Tiwaz! = Tuesday

Day of Jupiter = God of thunder, powerful and sexual... Thor! = Thursday

Day of Venus = Goddess of Love... Frida! = Friday

Day of Saturn = God of the harvest... Frey, maybe? But he is also god of time and old age, and he is old... Frey is young... Father of Jupiter/Thor? Odin, maybe? But Odin already has a day, and Odin is not a god of the harvest... Eats his own children?! WTF?! I'm not touching this! I'll leave it as Day of Saturn! = Saturday

Not to be too strict here, but can I have some sources on the part I bolded?

[Clistenes]

Not to be too strict here, but can I have some sources on the part I bolded?

I'm sure if you look around you will find a site where they explain the origin of the days of the week in germanic languages...

I have just looked at Wikipedia (not the best of sources, but the quickest), and it says "The Germanic peoples adapted the system introduced by the Romans but glossed their indigenous gods over the Roman deities in a process known as interpretatio germanica. In the case of Saturday, however, the Roman name was borrowed directly by Westgermanic peoples, apparently because none of the Germanic gods were considered to be counterparts of the Roman god Saturn."

Wikipedia also says that some germanic people just called Saturday "the day before Sunday..." ("In Old English, Saturday was also known as sunnanæfen ("sun" + "eve" cf. dialectal German Sonnabend")

Never noticed the engish name for the days were mostly from the germanic gods. You learn something every day :)

The weird stuff is that while my language kept most of the roman gods names (Lundi for Luna, Mardi for Mars, Mercredi for Mercure, Jeudi for Jupiter, Vendredi for Venus...), the one we changed (Samedi) is the only Roman god the germanics kept (saturday).

The Latino/Catholic countries replaced the Day of the Sun for the Day of the Lord (Dominus Dei) and the Day of Saturn for Sabbath because of religious reasons...

[Jasdoif]

And, since buying power tends to increase with gold because its limited, it encourages saving money. Whereas fiat money encourages spending it quickly since any money saved might not get you as much a year from now as it does today.

You make an interesting point: Fiat currency's very nature encourages exchanging it, bolstering its worth as a medium of exchange.

[Clistenes]

Heh. Now consider Japanese.

nichiyoubi — Sun weekday
getsuyoubi — Moon weekday
kayoubi — Fire weekday
suiyoubi — Water weekday
mokuyoubi — Wood weekday
kinyoubi — Metal weekday
doyoubi — Earth weekday

Sun and Moon are the same as European, but the rest seems completely different? Look at the planets (from the Sun outwards, skipping Earth):

(Mercury) suisei — Water star
(Venus) kinsei — Metal star
(Mars) kasei — Fire star
(Jupiter) mokusei — Wood star
(Saturn) dosei — Earth star
(Uranus) tennousei — Heaven king star
(Neptune) kaiousei — Sea king star
(Pluto) meiousei — Dark king star

The Japanese mapping of weekdays to elements to planets is the same as the European mapping of weekdays to gods to planets. Curious, huh?

I think kinyoubi means "gold weekday" and kinsei means "gold star"

You know what I find weird? The five classical elements in East Asia are Wood, Earth, Water, Air and Fire, and four of those are present in both the planets and the days of the week, but they have skipped Air, or rather, replaced it with "Gold"...

Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were all discovered quite recently (Uranus was discovered during the XVIII century, Neptune during the XIX century and Pluto during the XX century), so the japanese scientists created names that described the roman deities they were named after as close as they were able.

Considering the whole idea of the surrounding peoples equating their gods to the Roman pantheon was made up by 19th century German romantic nationalist academics looking to cover themselves in reflected glory, you are correct to be dubious.

Nope. The romans equated almost every god to one of their own deities. Baal was Jupiter, Toutatis was Mars, Wodan was Mercury... etc.

Wodan was assimilated to Mercury because the romans worshipped Mercury mostly as a guide of the souls of the dead (his greek counterpart Hermes was more popular, being a sort of Jack of al Trades among the gods that helped travellers, merchants, thieves, messengers, heralds...etc.), and Wodan was seen by the common germanic man mostly as a god of dead warriors.

Wodan had many other responsabilities, like royalty, divination, magic, fate...etc., but only kings and sorcerers dared to pray and sacrifice to Wodan, who was perceived as a dangeous, sinister deity (Thor/Donnar, Njord and Frey were more popular among sailors and peasants, Thor and Tiwaz were more popular among warriors, and Freya and Frigga among women), so most people barely ever thought about Wodan... except when a battle was close...

But in any case snakes and ravens in general are associated with death. To a Roman, confronted with a god with a couple of animal companions you'd normally not think of as pets, I can see the jump to the conclusion. Other connections - such as the traveling - would need to be explained to said Roman, but on seeing a picture of Odin with his staff & ravens may bring up a memory of Hermes with his staff and snakes, without needing for the translator to explain anything.

Actually, both snakes and ravens had mostly positive connotations among the Romans and the Greek. They were symbols of healing. The raven was the bird of Apollo a god of healing among other things, and the snake was sacred to Asclepios, god of medicine (non-venomous snakes lived in the temples of Asclepius).

That said Apollo was a god of epidemics and sudden deaths, so there may be a connection to death too...

You know, it is interesting how differently animals were seen in different regions of Europe. The wolf, for example was seen as a symbol of evil in the north of Europe, but was looked almost with sympathy in the south. The cat was well liked in the Mediterranean basin, but the Celts and Germans saw them as sinister creatures (Cath Palug, the Yule Cat, Caith Sith...etc.).

In the tales of the kingdom of Leon, in Spain, the wolf and the vixen are brother and sister; the wolf is the good (and dumb) one, while the vixen is the wicked (and cunning) one. When they make plans to steal food from humans, she always eats all the food and leaves him behind to be captured and beaten or killed. And despite that, when the vixen had a son, the wolf became his godfather and taught him how to hunt...

[Ironsmith]

I for one am grateful that they are doing this.

1. I have too much respect for Abe Lincoln to condone the loss of the penny.
2. Without the penny, the phrase "my two cents worth" would lose its meaning.
3. The phrase A penny for your thoughts? would pass further out of circulation.
4. I'd have to find a coin of more value to mark my golf ball on the green before putting
5. The easy understanding of the value of "a copper piece" in D&D would fade.

Keep the penny, it's not about the copper.

For the sake of the collective sanity of this thread, can we assume this was deadpan satire? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, those are some pretty petty (and more to the point, pretty obviously petty) reasons to keep minting the coin.

...

Buuut if not, some interesting counterpoints:

1. I'm sure Abe Lincoln would be more touched by keeping a profile of his face in circulation than by having the government make practical decisions with the people in mind.
2. "Rule of Thumb" had that same problem; There are two theories regarding where the phrase came from, one that claims it was as an improvised measuring stick for carpenters, and the other that it was a reference to how thick a stick a man could legally beat his wife with. Since carpentry is not nearly as prevalent a profession as it used to be, and wife beating is sort of, you know, horribly illegal these days, by all rights, the phrase should have fallen out of use. Guess what it didn't do?
3. Let's be honest, not many people use the phrase "a penny for your thoughts" these days, and the ones that do generally miss the original context, at least in part because a penny was actually worth something when the phrase was coined. (Ah? Ah?) It's on the chopping block for natural progression of languages, anyway.
4. Marking a golf ball is nothing you couldn't do with a spare button or something. Hell, you could probably just keep a penny on hand and store it with your clubs, instead of just counting on someone to have one in their wallet somewhere.
5. Given that we don't use gold and platinum coins as currency anymore, I've gotta wonder at the validity of this statement to begin with.

[Clistenes]

Simply Put, It costs the US Gov more to print a penny than it is worth. In theory, you could buy rolls of american pennies from the bank, melt them down and sell them to the US Gov for more than the pennies cost you.

Also: Don't do that, its not worth your time.

Finally, The main reason there is still a penny around is the fact that there is a surprisingly active penny lobbyist community here in the US.

I wish I was making this up.

In my country it is illegal to destroy money (but it's never enforced, because nobody destroys money in large enough amounts)

The reason? You are the owner of the monetary value of the coin, and you can use it as a medium of exchange... But the government keeps the property of the physical coin.

Because having coins is good for the economy, and that benefit more than outweighs the high cost of minting the coin... But if people were to start destroying them, it would be a problem...

I have heard that there is some trouble with people buying eurocents in bulk and shipping them to China, where they are made into copper wire (not sure it is true, I lack a reliable source...).

Also, the lack of any significant industry: Spain was selling its wool to the Netherlands and buying it back as clothes, for example.

That was due to inflation too. Prices rose so much in Spain that it was cheaper to bring clothes made in the Netherlands than to buy clothes made the next town over... kind of like cheap chinese wares are flooding western markets now...

It could be avoided with the right politics... but inflation was so high when the government started to tax heavily both the wool exports and the imports of clothes, people still kept buying foreign-made clothes... and at that point, the government chose to keep receiving those taxes rather than outright banning wool exports and clothes imports...

[Erys]

You make an interesting point: Fiat currency's very nature encourages exchanging it, bolstering its worth as a medium of exchange.

Problem one, fiat currency is never a free exchange.

I don't accept Greenbacks because I think I can go to the bank and trade it for something tangible- that other people would also want and accept.

I do it because the law tells me that if I don't accept them- I will be punished.

[Jasdoif]

Problem one, fiat currency is never a free exchange.

I don't accept Greenbacks because I think I can go to the bank and trade it for something tangible- that other people would also want and accept.

I do it because the law tells me that if I don't accept them- I will be punished.

Sounds like a lot of people would accept them, then.

[Erys]

Sounds like a lot of people would accept them, then.

If that were true we would need no laws enforcing there use.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This is not entirely true though... inflation/hyper inflation happened because the currency was being debased by those in charge of preserving it. I.e.: chipping coins so people lost faith in said economy.

Had they not done that in a greedy attempt to create more wealth for themselves... Rome may not have suffered as it did. But greed and politics, sadly, go hand in hand... true today as it was two thousand years ago.

False. They weren't greedy - they simply ran out of gold. Inflation happens whether you are on fiat or on gold-based economy. Eventually, the supply of Spanish & German gold ran out, and Rome had to debase the currency to keep up with the increased need for coins by an ever-increasing population. That is what caused the problem. Gold-backed coins is not a magical thing that stops inflation forever, as every country that has tried the silly idea has discovered.

Gold/silver is stable largely because you can only pull some much out of the ground at a time. Unless you steal another countries gold, prices should only vary based on supply and demand.

And because there is a limited supply, but the economy and population keep increasing, sooner or later you have two choices:
1) Stand by the stupid idea, in which case the economy grinds to a halt as there is insufficient money in the system
or
2) You debase the currency, at which point you have the worst of both fiat and gold-backed currencies, without the advantage of pure fiat.

That presented value is based on fiat figures. If gold was the world currency (again) golds value would simply be higher. For something today that cost an ounce of gold (about $1200) would cost maybe half an ounce, or even a hundredth of an ounce.

You've just torpedo'ed your own position. It turns out that gold-backed currency is not stable, that gold will have to increase in value so quickly that it can only be described as hyper-inflationary deflationary. Those that have the gold never spend it, because it will always be worth more the next day.

There is always enough gold.

History has proven that to be false again and again.

And, since buying power tends to increase with gold because its limited, it encourages saving money. Whereas fiat money encourages spending it quickly since any money saved might not get you as much a year from now as it does today.

So, in short: gold-backed currency encourages economies to stop investing and hoard. Fiat currencies promote investing and using the money, and in fact have a healthy amount of inflation, nature's tax on rich people. Sounds like fiat money is much better for a healthy economy. And indeed it is.

Grey Wolf

[The MunchKING]

I don't accept Greenbacks because I think I can go to the bank and trade it for something tangible- that other people would also want and accept.

I do it because the law tells me that if I don't accept them- I will be punished.

Not really, aside from the government won't protect your right to do business with whatever medium it is you've chosen.

If you refuse to use American dollars, all the US government will do is uphold the idea that businesses don't have to do business with you. You won't get thrown in jail or anything.

[2D8HP]

The more of Durkon"s memories that the Giant shows, the more I admire and respect the Dwarves.

Except for the noble example of Durkon himself, I mostly thought of the Dwarves as rigid-minded, hard-drinking, hard-fighting, tree-haters, but what I now see is a loving community devoted to each other.

---

...A modern "Federal Reserve Note" (in America)...

When I was a little kid, in the1970's, one of my classmates saw that they had an old bill that read "Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank"...



...we all gathered around to look at it, and then a teacher grabbed it.

[Jasdoif]

It turns out that gold-backed currency is not stable, that gold will have to increase in value so quickly that it can only be described as hyper-inflationary. Those that have the gold never spend it, because it will always be worth more the next day.

Wouldn't that be hyperdeflation?

[Aron Times]

I wonder if Durkon is trying to make the vampire more like him. It's an evil spirit, but it's still a thinking creature and the two are linked in a way that allows Durkon the ability to influence the vampire (if not actually make it do anything). So, show it a lot of memories and see if its opinions are as strong as it thinks.

I honestly believe that Durkon and Durkula will eventually merge into one gestalt soul. I think this is the fate of all vampires. Remember that line about Durkula being created from Durkon's darkest memories? I think that vampires experience some dissociation and it's not a fully separate soul, more like the Beast in Vampire: the Masquerade/Requiem, except it's the Beast in control and the Man caged within.

In either iteration of Vampire, vampires can achieve enlightenment called Golconda. It's not codified in any book but the way I understand it, it's not about the vampire overcoming his hunger, but rather accepting what he is. The Man and the Beast integrate into each other into a superior gestalt.

Durkula achieving Golconda will entail him and Durkon merging into one soul that has accepted its nature as an undead predator.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wouldn't that be hyperdeflation?

For the economy as a whole, yes. From the point of gold itself, I think it would still be inflation. However, that's quibbling and I did mean deflationary in my head, so I've corrected it above and given you proper credit.

GW

[2D8HP]

(Also, it's fun going down to the States when visiting elderly relatives and bringing along toonies and plastic bills to show them and their friends. "What? This is actual money? You're joking, right?")

While I'd be worried that I wouldn't be able to spend it, I was often delighted when I found that I got Canadian money as change (mostly because I thought that Queen Elizabeth 2 looked foxy on the money).

[Rogar Demonblud]

It's deflationary. How fast it changes determines the 'hyper' adverb.

And there is indeed plenty of gold in the earth, something like a few quintillion tons of it. We just need to figure out how to mine it out of the mantle.

[Erys]

False. They weren't greedy - they simply ran out of gold. Inflation happens whether you are on fiat or on gold-based economy. Eventually, the supply of Spanish & German gold ran out, and Rome had to debase the currency to keep up with the increased need for coins by an ever-increasing population. That is what caused the problem. Gold-backed coins is not a magical thing that stops inflation forever, as every country that has tried the silly idea has discovered.


And because there is a limited supply, but the economy and population keep increasing, sooner or later you have two choices:
1) Stand by the stupid idea, in which case the economy grinds to a halt as there is insufficient money in the system
or
2) You debase the currency, at which point you have the worst of both fiat and gold-backed currencies, without the advantage of pure fiat.


You've just torpedo'ed your own position. It turns out that gold-backed currency is not stable, that gold will have to increase in value so quickly that it can only be described as hyper-inflationary. Those that have the gold never spend it, because it will always be worth more the next day.


History has proven that to be false again and again.


So, in short: gold-backed currency encourages economies to stop investing and hoard. Fiat currencies promote investing and using the money, and in fact have a healthy amount of inflation, nature's tax on rich people. Sounds like fiat money is much better for a healthy economy. And indeed it is.

Grey Wolf

Romes population booms were not from births, but conquest. A nation that expands too fast will fall. And when you debase your currency, no matter how pure- you fall even harder.

Fiat currency will always seem like a boon at first, because in an instant you create money to fund projects that will then be used by the workers to buy food and from which you can take back in the form of taxes. There is no limit to projects because there is no limit to how much you can create. But as the money supply swells the value of each note becomes less and less, and eventually the amount of money that used to fill a grocery cart thirty years ago will only buy you four or five items today

By contrast gold and silver currency does not generally allow fast paced projects. You can only pull the metal so fast out of the ground, therefore you can only inject so much new coin into the economy*- ergo it has stability built in.

If, say, corn became too plentiful, its value in respect to gold or silver coins goes down. If corn get too plentiful and people literally stop buying it, knowing tomorrow they can get more corn if they wait... corn farmers will start to go out of business. Corn will start to disappear and its relative value will return.

*Outside factors and inside corruption not withstanding. A government, and people of power, desire control. It is counter intuitive to horde all the money because then you have no structure for which to rule over. If the respective powers that be ignore the inherent balance within the intrinsic system, opting to conquer and acquire too fast, be too generous in allowing new people within their borders, or adding too much new money into the money supply at one time- they can break it.

[Erys]

Not really, aside from the government won't protect your right to do business with whatever medium it is you've chosen.

If you refuse to use American dollars, all the US government will do is uphold the idea that businesses don't have to do business with you. You won't get thrown in jail or anything.

Try paying your taxes in something other than FRNs.

[Erys]

When I was a little kid, in the1970's, one of my classmates saw that they had an old bill that read "Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank"...



...we all gathered around to look at it, and then a teacher grabbed it.

The history of that little phrase should be taught in every classroom.

[danielxcutter]

How the heck did we start talking about this?!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Romes population booms were not from births, but conquest.

Rome stopped expanding through conquest long before the Crisis of the third century. Trajan, the last Emperor to push out the borders, had been dead for 150 years at that point.

A nation that expands too fast will fall.

False. Rome expanded extraordinarily quickly under the Republic and early Empire... and then continued to exist without failing for hundreds of years after that. Unless, of course, you are playing word games and "too fast" means only what you need it to mean for you to not be spouting nonsense.

And when you debase your currency, no matter how pure- you fall even harder.

Says you. History says otherwise.

Fiat currency will always seem like a boon at first, because in an instant you create money to fund projects that will then be used by the workers to buy food and from which you can take back in the form of taxes. There is no limit to projects because there is no limit to how much you can create. But as the money supply swells the value of each note becomes less and less, and eventually the amount of money that used to fill a grocery cart thirty years ago will only buy you four or five items today

Yes, I'm aware of what inflation is. But your word is not enough to simply declare it "bad". Other than for the extreme rich and people who like to complain about how they used to buy gum for ridiculously "low prices" back in the day, even though purchasing power remains roughly stable between then and now.

By contrast gold and silver currency does not generally allow fast paced projects. You can only pull the metal so fast out of the ground, therefore you can only inject so much new coin into the economy*- ergo it has stability built in.

Stability is what you call it. Stagnation is what reality calls it. Nothing you have said disputes or even explains why a country running out of currency due to natural inflation due to population growth would be a good thing. As Europe discovered at the onset of industrialization, when the hard currencies cannot keep up with economic growth, you either abandon the metal or crash your economy. As simple as that. No amount of decrying "stability" helps when development outstrips mining.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

If, say, corn became too plentiful, its value in respect to gold or silver coins goes down. If corn get too plentiful and people literally stop buying it, knowing tomorrow they can get more corn if they wait... corn farmers will start to go out of business. Corn will start to disappear and its relative value will return.

How is that any different than with fiat currency?

[DataNinja]

While I'd be worried that I wouldn't be able to spend it, I was often delighted when I found that I got Canadian money as change (mostly because I thought that Queen Elizabeth 2 looked foxy on the money).

I don't believe that you're able to spend Canadian currency in the States, I may be wrong, though. (Though the reverse is true, we'll accept American tender... though it's usually a bit annoying for the cashiers, because exchange rates necessitates using the conversion mode. So, for their sake, try not to mix currencies, please.)

[Erys]

Rome stopped expanding through conquest long before the Crisis of the third century. Trajan, the last Emperor to push out the borders, had been dead for 150 years at that point.


False. Rome expanded extraordinarily quickly under the Republic and early Empire... and then continued to exist without failing for hundreds of years after that. Unless, of course, you are playing word games and "too fast" means only what you need it to mean for you to not be spouting nonsense.


Says you. History says otherwise.


Yes, I'm aware of what inflation is. But your word is not enough to simply declare it "bad". Other than for the extreme rich and people who like to complain about how they used to buy gum for ridiculously "low prices" back in the day, even though purchasing power remains roughly stable between then and now.


Stability is what you call it. Stagnation is what reality calls it. Nothing you have said disputes or even explains why a country running out of currency due to natural inflation due to population growth would be a good thing. As Europe discovered at the onset of industrialization, when the hard currencies cannot keep up with economic growth, you either abandon the metal or crash your economy. As simple as that. No amount of decrying "stability" helps when development outstrips mining.

Grey Wolf

The Crisis of the Third Century, also known as Military Anarchy or the Imperial Crisis (AD 235–284), was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of invasion, civil war, plague, and economic depression.

***
Internally, the empire faced hyperinflation caused by years of coinage devaluation. This had started earlier under the Severan emperors who enlarged the army by one quarter[4] and doubled the legionaries' base pay. As each of the short-lived emperors took power, he needed ways to raise money quickly to pay the military's "accession bonus" and the easiest way to do so was by inflating the coinage severely, a process made possible by debasing the coinage with bronze and copper.

wiki

Again, outside factors and inside corruption not withstanding. A government, and people of power, desire control. It is counter intuitive to horde all the money because then you have no structure for which to rule over. If the respective powers that be ignore the inherent balance within the intrinsic system, opting to conquer and acquire too fast, be too generous in allowing new people within their borders, or adding too much new money into the money supply at one time- they can break it.

In Romes case they had outside factors, inside corruption, AND they debased their currency. They swelled their money supply artificially by chipping coins and it aided in their demise.

[Erys]

How is that any different than with fiat currency?

With fiat currency it is much easier to add more money to the existing money supply. Because of this inflation (decreased buying power) is built into the system.

Even if the rate of consumption and production of corn are stable, the price will go up.

[2D8HP]

I honestly believe that Durkon and Durkula will eventually merge into one gestalt soul. I think this is the fate of all vampires. Remember that line about Durkula being created from Durkon's darkest memories?....

U find it interesting that Greg/Durkula has to get Durkon to show most useful memories, but the Vampire has all the negative emotion memories so automatically that they can show them to a captive soul.

---

....since buying power tends to increase with gold because its limited, it encourages saving money. Whereas fiat money encourages spending it quickly since any money saved might not get you as much a year from now as it does today.....

When you explain it that way (since one persons spending is another persons income) I'm definitely glad that we got off the gold standard then.

---

...both snakes and ravens had mostly positive connotations among the Romans and the Greek. They were symbols of healing. The raven was the bird of Apollo a god of healing among other things, and the snake was sacred to Asclepios, god of medicine (non-venomous snakes lived in the temples of Asclepius)...

Oh boy! I love the mythology lessons!

Please keep them coming!