By Joshua Mawhorter
The Continentals and other paper monies only temporarily retained some value largely because of an initial promise of future redemption in gold and silver—a monetary “bait-and-switch.”
pull down to refresh
By Joshua Mawhorter
The Continentals and other paper monies only temporarily retained some value largely because of an initial promise of future redemption in gold and silver—a monetary “bait-and-switch.”
I'm no lover of MMT, but couldn't it have been the case that nobody believed articles of confederation era govt was capable of extracting taxes from its citizens?
(And therefore the value imputed to money may still be possible via accepting it in payment of taxes as long as the state is able to back that up by a credible threat of violence?)
The problem with the value-from-taxes argument is that it only assures a positive value but doesn't imply any particular amount of purchasing power to the monetary unit.
Gold and silver each have their own relative exchange rates with all other goods, so redemption promises imply a specific amount of purchasing power to the money.
Wait... what (commodities) market uses gold as the quote currency? That's interesting because it means one could trade without USD exposure.
I didn't say there are markets that use gold as the quote currency. Relative exchange ratios is a concept of non/pre-monetary economies.
In a barter economy there would be prevailing rates of exchange between every pair of goods: i.e. 25 bananas for one chicken. So, if an ounce of gold can typically be exchanged for a nice suit, then a paper note that's redeemable for an ounce of gold should be able to purchase a nice suit.