The Future of Money

Yes, every world currency whether digital or physical paper including crypto is all fiat. It will all fail. It always has, it always will. Taking the US currency off the gold standard was the worsest decision ever. Sure it has lasted almost half a century since we were off. Don't let that fool you. Silver & gold will have to once again reign as currency king!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Again, thanks for your reply and I am glad that you found the original post interesting. And, again, I point to the actual history of money. Why were lumps of electrum struck with distinctive images? Why trust Athena/Owl as a symbol of the city that issued the coin? Why trust the names of the magistrates put on coins in ancient Greek cities and in then in Rome? Why trust anyone?

Trust is based on reputation. Reputation exists within a community.

As for constantly having to compare the relative values of moneys, people do it all the time. That's what foreign exchange, stock markets, and commodities exchanges are all about. Futures, longs, shorts, puts, calls, all of that and each one constantly re-evaluated as traders buy and sell currencies and other forms of money. As I said, you can trade cows for gold on the Chicago Board of Trade.

 

I went to the site and read it throug. I appreciate the effort you put into it. We could go back and forth on much and agree on more. Obviously, it is a broad and deep topic that we both enjoy investigating.

Thanks.

 

I agree. As the ponzi schemes become more and more exposed, our paper will be like that of Zimbabwe. Perhaps after that it can be rebuilt into something more meaningful for the population. This system being based on absolutely nothing other than fiction based balance sheets surrounded by a debt timer that clicks off faster and faster every second can ultimately do nothing else in the end. Just a question of when.

 

The market dollar valuation can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent alive. Or so it seems.

 

It has been that way for sure. Doubt it can continue though. These times of mega profit and slave labor rates have to end soon and they will. Question is what will replace it? Don't know but it's gonna be ugly for sure. I just hope that after it crashes, something more solvent can be reconstructed.

 

I'm always up for renewed thinking. Most of what is written in this is research I have done and quoted those that I am in agreement with. However, if you have something to add or alter, I'd be more than agreeable to research it and make any adjustments as needed.

 

[quote ="medoraman, past 4] "Even in ancient days, you could not hold on to a coin forever as a store of value, as civilizations changed. If your ruler wanted to debase, he debased. If you took a foreign coin to another country you never got full value in exchange."[\quote]

In the first place, your reply contradicts your thesis and supports mine. Your original claim was that "you could not hold on to a coin forever as a store of value." Yet, indeed, as I said and as you said, the coins of Antony circulated for 200 years.

(1) They were silver, even if only 2/3. But it made a convenience, apparently.
and
(2) I believe that he was popular as a symbol of the Republic and as an ally of Julius Caesar.

Otherwise, over the course of time, they would have been sold to money changers for whatever they could bring. But in decades after his death, generations continued to use his coins.

 

Soldiers saved his coins as good luck tokens. He was very much revered by all Roman soldiers. No one hoarded them as value because they were not as valuable innately as any other Roman silver at the time. Hoard finds near battle sites and forts reinforce that this coin was saved by soldiers for decades, but not because its silver content was good, but because it was bad and merchants didn't want them but the soldiers felt affection to him.

You are concentrating on a few special cases, (Athenian owls, Roman coins at their peak). Move forward a couple of hundred years in Rome. How well did those coins work as a store of value after 100 years? How did all of the Greek cities coins work? If you were not in that city, the money changers devalued the coins in terms of spending power. Same is true today, local money is local, you lose if taking it somewhere else. However, 3rd century Roman coins still managed to be effective for what they were used, to save up chicken money to buy an ox. They were still money, even if horribly debased. Even if money is not in pm, or not equal to melt value, it still functions as a "store of value" for the timeframe intended, (maybe 10-20 years).

"Store of value" means being able to save up for a big purchase, or sell something and buy many small things, over a long period of time and not risk your "money" rotting, dying, etc. If all of your life savings is in a cow, it doesn't help if it dies. If your life savings are artichokes, it just rotted away the next season. Since metals were already being used as a store of value, they naturally were looked at as the medium for money when it was invented, but it was never meant to be 500 year timeframes. Money needs to be a store of value for its use, which is facilitating commerce.

 

Btw, another aspect of the definition of money is important. The paper money you carry around in a wallet is not the US Dollar. The US Dollar is US treasury bonds, which, like bonds, bear interest. If you hold US Treasury bonds over time, their purchasing power does effectively stay the same, so it is a perfect store of value.

Most people do not realize paper money is simply an interest free loan to the government, to be exchanged later by someone for the "real" USD, bonds.

Sorry, not trying to derail your thread @kaparthy. I do appreciate free thinking envisioning what will evolve next to facilitate trade. Who would have thought 15 years ago half the world would waive a cell phone around to pay for good sand services. I never saw that coming, but to me MODE of transferring USD is more predictable and expected to have changes than the CURRENCY standard. I could see a chip in the arm to pay for things in the future, but I believe we will still be transferring USD in this country, just in different ways.

 

I wonder what legal recourse would take place if a business refused to accept US cash currency as a legal form of payment?

 

I'd guess they'd side with the owner stating something like 'It's their own business and they can do as they choose'. Wouldn't agree but that would likely be the verdict.

 

I have heard of a number of places here in the islands that (due to theft and other activities) there are a business(es) that only accept digital payments. I've heard this has become an issue(s), because this wasn't discovered until after the event or payment was due. ie: resturaunts especially where you receive your food and then after the meal you're required to pay. Or standing in line until you get to the window to get your entry ticket only to find out that payment had to have taken place on line. That there were no provisions to accept cash at the window.

 

Any merchant can refuse to sell you anything they want if they do not want to accept your payment. However, to settle a debt they MUST accept USD. It is the legal form of settlement. If the merchant refuses USD for a debt, a court can consider the debt settled and complete. In short, if someone owes you money and you refuse to accept USD to pay it off, the debt will be nullified and you will then collect nothing.

 

Were you aware that referencing the Coinage Act of 1965, which states cash must be accepted for paying a debt — but not as payment for goods or services.

So private businesses are free to implement their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.

So, I can verify that it is perfectly legal for private businesses, such as restaurants, to not accept cash. The supplies or services you are ordering must be paid by other means.

 

Depends on the local legislation, I think. From what I read earlier this year, some places have made accepting cash mandatory ... MA and NJ, and the city of Philadelphia. There are exceptions of course, but apparently a store cannot simply refuse taking cash ...

Christian

 

Two very different things. One is is the USD the legal tender to extinguish an existing debt, second is if shopkeepers have the right to not sell you something based upon how you wish to pay.

For existing debts, there has to be one legal way to satisfy them. What if your bank only accepted Swiss gold bars as payment on your mortgage, but you couldn't find any? For existing debt, the USD is the legal settlement.

Now, at a store you are trading. There is no debt yet. Therefore, the shopkeeper can demand you pay in black gummy worms if s/he likes. Only downside is a trade would not happen. Like Christian alludes, some cities are passing laws saying they have to accept cash. These are in response to electronic only stores, and the fact poorer people may not have access to this form of payment. These have not been tested in court yet, though.

 

Yes, this is what I'm saying. A debt is not a debt until it is created. Most contracts say that payments must be made by a legal US currency. But it will be interesting to see just what the future of money is in another 5yrs.