pull down to refresh

it becomes a gamble, an entrepreneurial foresight, where you, me, or merchants need to have some projection about likelihood to pass off the bad note. (similar to bitcoin and dollars, for instance, provided the notes could come with discounts).
If I, or the merchant, would rather play it safe -- torn note is broke/fake/possible won't be accepted by the next guy -- they'd opt for the good note or maybe even decline the trade altogether.
that's the opposite of Gresham's law
torn note is broke/fake/possible won't be accepted by the next guy
I wrote about it above already... Then, for simplicity: one banknot is acceptable for everyone, but significantly used second one is like a brand new
and almost everyone will rid of the first one, what is exactly effect of Copernicus' Law, and what is in fact plain, natural human behaviour
(and this is by no means Gresham's Law, simply because Thomas Gresham in A.D. 1526 was a kid or not even born yet)
reply
Nono, you're missing my point -- and what I think a lot of the Rolnick/Mundell/Selgin debacles was about:
everyone will try to spend the used one, and keep the high-quality one. But the merchant is in the exact same position, with incentives reversed. He would want the brand new one, not the significantly used one.
So there's a negotiation going on, naturally leading to some kind of price discovery (pay premium/discount for pristine quality etc).
The weird think you discuss is when some entity FORCES everyone to accept the two notes at par. (insert good car/bad car analogy)
reply
But the merchant is in the exact same position
No, he is not in the same position.
I see the content of my wallet only - while he doesn't. And I give him ten-dollar banknote which I prefer: so, a used one, but still in acceptable condition for anyone.
He simply doesn't know if I have another ten-dollar banknote (brand new) inside my wallet or not.
reply