Money vs Currency. Explaining Gold.

[Black Flag]

Rothbard pegged money with 6 characteristics. FRN's are not uneasy to counterfeit and they are not a store of value. FRN's are simply currency.

Nothing is a store of value - you can't store what must be imputed.

 

[Black Flag]

I sure as hell wouldn't use FRN's starting the day after competing currencies were legalized.

Nothing is stopping you today, then.

 

[joshnorris14]

Abundance is the opposite of scarce. That was my point. Meat is a scarce commodity in the world, yet if I own 10 cattle, and 10 pigs, then meat is not scarce for me. Scarcity, like value, is based on the individual. No two individuals share the same scarcity or value.

How is this relevant to scarcity?
No, I wouldn't take it.

You wouldn't buy something that is not scarce... You also wouldn't own it, but so much for trying to show you what scarcity actually is.

 

[joshnorris14]

Nothing is a store of value - you can't store what must be imputed.

You damn well know what I mean. There are certain assets people use to maintain their wealth (IE stores of value), they can't do that with FRN's.

 

[Travlyr]

And FRBN does that just fine, too.

Fine for you. I don't like them at all.

 

[Travlyr]

Nothing is stopping you today, then.

My local store will not accept silver.

 

[Travlyr]

You wouldn't buy something that is not scarce... You also wouldn't own it, but so much for trying to show you what scarcity actually is.

I raised them from Cows and Sows. I didn't buy them. They are not scarce to me. What am I missing?

 

[Travlyr]

Nothing is a store of value - you can't store what must be imputed.

If I saved 100 silver dollars and 100 FRBN's in 1968 the silver would be worth $2600 FRNB's today and the FRNB's would still be worth $100.

 

[joshnorris14]

I raised them from Cows and Sows. I didn't buy them. They are not scarce to me. What am I missing?

If they weren't scarce you wouldn't raise them either. You wouldn't exert any economic effort into them. That includes time and labor.

 

[Travlyr]

If they weren't scarce you wouldn't raise them either. You wouldn't exert any economic effort into them. That includes time and labor.

Makes sense. They were scarce to me before I raised them. Now that I have an abundance, they are no longer scarce to me. They are valuable.

 

[joshnorris14]

Makes sense. They were scarce to me before I raised them. Now that I have an abundance, they are no longer scarce to me. They are valuable.

Why add that they are valuable? What point are you making?

An abundance does not mean they are not scarce. I could have 100,000 oranges and they would still be scarce.

 

[Travlyr]

Why add that they are valuable? What point are you making?

An abundance does not mean they are not scarce. I could have 100,000 oranges and they would still be scarce.

Definition of SCARCE
1: deficient in quantity or number compared with the demand : not plentiful or abundant

I understand than most commodities are scarce in the world. Individually each person is different. How many oranges do you demand?

 

[joshnorris14]

Definition of SCARCE
1: deficient in quantity or number compared with the demand : not plentiful or abundant

I understand than most commodities are scarce in the world. Individually each person is different. How many oranges do you demand?

There you go conflating scarcity with demand. They are two different things. This entire scenario you have pointed out that you have no demand, not that there is no scarcity. Scarcity isn't defined as a value judgment like demand is. Things can be scarce regardless of demand and regardless of value. It is quantitative and objective. Demand is qualitative and subjective

 

[WilliamC]

Degree of scarcity has nothing to do with my discussion earlier AT ALL. Not even a little bit. I was talking about things that were scarce and things that were not scarce. Not things that were kind of scarce and things that were very scarce. YOU were the one that took what I said out of context.

No, I asked you simple direct questions and did not take your words out of context.

But at least you sort of answered it.

Now I understand that, to you, you the one meaning of the word scarcity is anything that isn't infinite in supply.

Personally, I sort of leave peoples words in context when I reply to them, but that's just a fault of mine 'cause I like to understand what others are talking about.

Not everyone shares this peccadillo of mine however.

 

[WilliamC]

No it doesn't.
You can buy and sell with CDN$ or Eur, or any other currency ... your contention is not correct.

Where do what comes from?

There's that obtuseness again, or my stupidity one.

The 'what' are the FRNs needed to pay the taxes. Since they aren't used for the barter, where do they come from? How are you not required to 'create' FRNs in order to legally complete the transaction (pay your taxes)?

Yes, tax is assigned to income and sales tax to transactions - and using another currency or barter does not dispel this.

Well then where do they come from? Why am I forced, by government, to convert the transaction into units denominated by FRNs and then go out and find some in order to legally complete the transaction?

That's what legal tender laws are, laws that compel us to use a currency we otherwise would not.

Without legal tender laws there would be no need to scrounge up FRNs every time we participated in any economic activity, like we are forced to do so now.

You mean if there was no tax? Probably not.

But no one is forced to use them, except in the circumstances so described above.

Ah, so they are forced to use them then. To pay taxes on every economic transaction they participate in. Thank you.

 

[WilliamC]

I don't believe this, and I don't believe FRN's are money. But, they are valuable, at least to most people in America. To say they aren't is very ignorant as almost every transaction in this country is facilitated by FRN's, which means that nearly half of people value however many FRN's they traded for more than the good or service they had.

I agree that FRNs are only 'money' under the force of law, i.e. by fiat, and that because of this they are valuable.

I could accept for purpose of discussion that FRNs are merely currency and not money, since they are not durable (well they do go through the laundry ok).

So it seems we agree!

 

[Steven Douglas]

I agree that FRNs are only 'money' under the force of law, i.e. by fiat, and that because of this they are valuable.

Pretty much. If had a foolproof technology that would make it impossible for anyone to start their vehicles without buying a special passcode from me, those passcodes would indeed become quite valuable. Take away the engine stopping ability of the technology, and watch how worthless those passcodes become.

FRN's are nothing more than an artificially forced necessity. Take away the artificial necessity, and watch its real value come to light. Those who think otherwise shouldn't have any problem whatsoever with fully competing currencies, with absolutely no barriers to entry.

 

[Black Flag]

You damn well know what I mean. There are certain assets people use to maintain their wealth (IE stores of value), they can't do that with FRN's.

Josh, but yes they do. They put them into savings acct., earn interest, and then spend their money in the future.

This is not a debate on either the erosion or appreciation of any one asset - but one of fundamentals.

Money is not a store of value but it is something valuable to store, as are a number of other goods in our marketplace.

 

[Black Flag]

My local store will not accept silver.

And neither would they gold (except minted coins with a FRBN assigned to them, of course)

 

[Black Flag]

If I saved 100 silver dollars and 100 FRBN's in 1968 the silver would be worth $2600 FRNB's today and the FRNB's would still be worth $100.

And if you bought silver in 1970 @ $80 and sold them today - it would be the other way around.

Simply because you pick a time *here* and *there* demonstrates nothing - the fact that silver or any other good gyrates wildly in its pricing and value is demonstrated by ample recorded fact.