[devinhelton]

But throughout the whole range of history, not only is there no evidence of the existence of a metallic standard of value to which the commercial monetary denomination, the “money of account” as it is usually called, corresponds, but there is overwhelming evidence that there never was, a monetary unit which depended on the value of coin or on a weight of metal; that there never was, until quite modern days, any fixed relationship between the monetary unit and any metal; that, in fact, there never was such a thing as a metallic standard of value.

This is a very slippery argument. The overall point of the essay is to show that basing one's currency on a metallic standard is silly and destructive. In this quote, the author is correct in that rarely in history has the monetary unit been permanently and inalterably fixed to an exact weight of metal. But -- it has been the norm in history to have a substantial precious metal content in money, with that content being fixed in the short term, and any lessening of the amount leading to charges of debasement, and possibly even the refusal to accept the currency.

The reason why precious metals have been an important part of money is trust -- an issue which the author fails to address. It takes a very strong government to make its subjects accept fiat currency. If the sovereign pays his soldiers in fiat currency, the soldiers know that the sovereign can infinitely dilute the currency, making the currency worthless. Whereas if the sovereign pays in coin containing precious metal, the soldier knows the precious metal is likely to be of value in many markets, no matter what the sovereign does. And by requiring money to be made from previous metals, it slows down the rate at which the sovereign can debase the currency (although of course the sovereign can and does slowly reduce the metal content).

If you trust your a particular government (or organization, or corporation) completely, then the author's arguments make sense, and you can accept the scrip of that government as currency. But if you don't trust that government completely... then you need a more complete assessment of the pros and cons of different monetary arrangements.

[adrianratnapala]

Yes, and the fact that we have successfully used fiat money for several decades is a testament to how well trusted modern governments are. It's a sign that things are going well. Though we can argue about what to expect in the future.

[jfoldager]

While governments back the base currency, most of the money in the monetary system is created by private banks as "money on account". A bank uses neither government issued money nor deposits from other costumers when writing up an account. Money on account is purely a promise of future payment, and in many countries these privately made money make up ~95 % of the monetary system (there are multiple definitions of money). Note that as long as the money on account are transferred to other costumers in the same bank, or can be cleared with other transactions when transferred between banks, the promise of future payment is deferred in perpetuity.

The main limits to how much money private banks can create are certain legal requirements and costumer trust that the bank is healthy. The legal requirements can be reserve requirements or capital requirements. Neither directly put an upper limit on money creation. A healthy bank will always be able to obtain more reserves. Capital requirements basically restrict how much banks can gear their capital, and when the banking sector grows in worth over time, it can add an equal amount of money into the system multiplied by that factor. In Denmark (where I am from) the is no reserve requirement and the banks are geared at ~20x.

[skookumchuck]

Overlooking that the value of the dollar stayed about the same from 1800 to 1914, and is now 1/25th of that value:

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

There's also all the relentless propaganda saying that inflation is a good thing, and if it isn't, it's caused by speculators & greed, not the government.

I don't invest in anything denoted in dollars (such as bonds).

[colanderman]

Who cares that the dollar gradually declines in value? Only fools literally invest long-term in the dollar itself (the "under the mattress" approach). And if you're investing in any productive asset of actual value, inflation doesn't matter. (I can understand being leery of non-inflation-adjusted bonds.)

All that really matters is that the dollar doesn't significantly lose value between payday and tax time – which by definition, it doesn't, since tax rates are fixed in dollars a year ahead of time anyway.

I won't bother to argue the virtues of inflation with you, since it seems clear you've made up your mind about that "propaganda". But to claim that controlled inflation is inherently a "bad" thing – for no reason other than that it causes a thing with no inherent value to decrease in perceived value – belies a misunderstanding of value.

[skookumchuck]

> Who cares that the dollar gradually declines in value?

Anyone who holds a dollar in their hands. Anyone who invests in assets that are taxed on the inflationary "gains" in value. Anyone who has to wait months/years for a raise to catch up with the intervening inflation. Anyone on a fixed income. Anyone who's inflation rise in wages gets taxed at their highest marginal tax bracket, or even pushes them into a higher bracket.

[tobmlt]

The ill which inflation brings does not manifest itself in the short run. Inflation is a hidden transfer of wealth from everyone to first receivers, and first users of the new money. When the money is loaned into existance, the first recipients of the new money get to make purchases based on the old price point. By the time the money spreads throughout the system to everyone else, it manifests as mere (generalized) price increase. This is a slow and steady siphon which in practical effect takes wealth from the "have nots" and gives it to the "haves".

To argue pro inflation based only on the short run view is missing the point.

[colanderman]

> Inflation is a hidden transfer of wealth from everyone to first receivers, and first users of the new money.

It's funny, that's exactly what I was going to say about deflation. I hear Mr. Nakamoto is worth a lot these days.

The rest of your argument doesn't make sense to me, as the only effect inflation has on anyone is the price increase in a good between the time you receive the money and the time you spend it. Not the price increase since the money first came into existence. It doesn't matter when I get money, so long (a) I am paid according to the current worth of the currency (i.e., in real terms) and (b) as I spend (or invest) it quickly.

I mentioned in another comment that inflation does have the negative effect of masking wage stagnation, which causes exactly condition (a) above to be violated. This is ultimately a problem with people's understanding of money. It would be great if employers were forced to announce a lack of yearly pay increase as a pay cut in real terms.

Condition (b) on the other hand. That's more a problem for the wealthy. Personally (as an upper-middle class tech worker) I'd love it if I could just shove my savings under a mattress and have it increase in value. It's those living paycheck to paycheck – which, if I recall correctly, is the vast majority of Americans – who don't have to worry about spending their cash before inflation gets to it.

[tobmlt]

About bitcoin I would hazard to say that different assets change in value for different reasons... Bitcoin is a mostly speculative vehicle, right now, and goes up and down according to expectations. I want to stay away from it to avoid muddying the waters of the discussion but I will say that I don't think bitcoin in and of itself is exploitative, and Nakamoto is worth a lot because he had an idea that resonated with a lot of people who had various related ideas about it. But what do I know, and I don't have a dog in that fight. (I assume a lot of people have a lot of strong opinions about bitcoin, and I don't really have time to think about it)

I would rather talk about our apparently opposing perspectives on inflation as I think that's the interesting bit. (I think our perspectives are only different in that one looks at things on a short small tempro/local human scale, and the other is more economy wide/slow moving in view - and one needs both)

> the only effect inflation has on anyone is the price increase in a good between the time you receive the money and the time you spend it. Not the price increase since the money first came into existence. It doesn't matter when I get money, so long (a) I am paid according to the current worth of the currency (i.e., in real terms) and (b) as I spend (or invest) it quickly.

I claim that there is another effect that is only visible when looking at large scales - of both people and time. What you claim is true when looking only at an individual actor, or some small scale. There, sure, an individual can receive and spend money and generally get equal to what one gives for things. This is the short term perspective on inflation. What I claim is true only shows up when looking at the economy more holistically, and over time.

Let's say that I am a government defense contractor. Let's say that The government loans into existence a huge sum of money and promptly disburses it to me to pay for some new defense widget. Meanwhile, the rest of the economy is buying and selling stuff at the old price point, oblivious to this new cash influx. (I am ignoring expectations at the moment - but I do not intend to always ignore them! --spoiler, I will just claim that they don't entirely spoil my defense contracting party)

I can merrily build a widget army, inking large contracts at the present price point, which has not yet increased in response to this influx of cash (since I am holding all of it). The difference in price, between what I pay and what stuff will be worth once the cash is entirely diffused, amounts to a subsidy paid to me, in the amount that inflation will devalue the currency once it has fully circulated. I experience the benefit in that I have more wealth, encapsulated within the stuff I just bought, than someone down the line could purchase with the same amount of cash. So the next contractor down the line benefits a little less than me, so on and so forth until the money trickles down to everyone, and they just see a general rise in prices. The fundamental mechanism is that I get to buy at the old price point, while in fact already experiencing the increase in supply of money. If money distributed equally, I would see a fair price. Instead, I see an artificially low price, given the true supply of money now.

I claim that this subsidy to me really has made "the little people" a tiny bit poorer, and me a little bit richer. (and that this is a machine running day and night for years on end... )

Now expectations - here is where the objections to "my" theory hold their ground. It is claimed that because the various contractors down the line expect general inflation they can price it into their contracts, they can charge me a bit more than the current price level would suggest is right, due to expected changes in the value of money relative to their widget components from now and delivery time.

People make such forecasts all the time. Forecasting is difficult. The economy swings on the actions of the fed.. The fed knows this... and so on. I can't fully answer this. The trail of logic runs cold. Who is winning the expectation battle? Who is getting rich?

My great forecast/bet/wager, (which I cannot prove!) is that even with rational expectations of inflation, people in power have found it useful to continue to inflate to pay their cronies, to continue to enrich themselves year in and out via this mechanism.

I suspect this comes back around to your condition (a) violation above - people's understanding of money, sometimes predicated on faith in things like rational expectations, sometimes predicated on flat out not "getting" that pay stagnation is pay decrease, is the final underlying driver that causes rational expectations to loose out, and "my" defense contracting pseudo self to "win" out.

I hope I didn't come off rude. If I did I sincerely apologize. I probably did. I probably came off like a long winded ass. Again I am sorry. Lots of things going on at the moment. The short of it is that it might take me a while to get back to you tonight should you read this monstrous wall of text but I will do my best.

Cheers

[psyc]

In this context, Nakamoto would be a first hodler, which doesn't contradict the parent comment.

[freejulian]

People want to store the value they’ve earned. If you don’t provide that functionality in your currency people will simply find an alternative. Today people use real estate to park their money. Personally I’d rather money provide that store of value.

[colanderman]

You're always free to buy gold with your money, if you think that's a better store of value. I don't think the government cares.

(Personally I invest in productive assets and bettering my standard of living, but to each their own.)

[coconutrandom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

"..forbade the hoarding 'of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency', under penalty of $10,000 and/or up to five to ten years imprisonment. The main rationale behind the order was actually to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve which prevented it from increasing the money supply during the depression"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gold_(Control)_Act,_1968

"Desai finally introduced the Gold Control Act, on 24 August 1968, which prohibited citizens from owning gold in the form of bars and coins. All existing holding of gold coins and bars had to be converted to jewellery and declared to the authorities. Goldsmiths were not allowed to own more than 100 gms of gold."

[freejulian]

As I said, if you're wealthy, you buy real estate to park your wealth. If you're poor, you just watch your savings wither away. Heck of a system you're supporting.

[ucaetano]

Inflation is good. Too much inflation is bad. Not because of inflation per se, but because of what inflation measures.

Inflation comes from a imbalance in supply and demand. If demand in an economy is growing in a healthy way, you'll have some inflation as investments in production will take time to result in increased production.

This increase in prices serve as signaling to determine where to invest in capacity.

Prices is how agents communicate in open markets, a slight inflation is a message that there is unmet demand.

But this is all basic economics...

[tensor_rank_0]

> Inflation is good.

inflation is good for net debtors and bad for savers.

> Inflation comes from a imbalance in supply and demand

price inflation is a necessary consequence of monetary inflation.

> This increase in prices serve as signaling to determine where to invest in capacity.

thats actually how malinvestment occurs. people see a lot of money flooding in, and think that is a demand for capital investment, but then when their customer base dries up they realize it was an artificial stream of money that shifted with the political winds.

> Prices is how agents communicate in open markets

this is true

> a slight inflation is a message that there is unmet demand.

a gradual increase in prices is a sign that more dollars are chasing the same amount of goods, ceteris paribus.

> But this is all basic economics...

not sure that condescension is warranted. basic economics distinguishes between price inflation as a result of monetary inflation and price increases due to other reasons.

[ucaetano]

Nice job missing the context:

Inflation is good not because of inflation itself, but because of what it signals: a growth in demand outpacing the growth in supply.

If supply is not outpacing demand, there are no investments in additional capacity.

> thats actually how malinvestment occurs.

No, that's how gains in productivity work. And that's how competition works. As demand increases, multiple agents will invest independently to supply that demand, leading to oversupply, leading to reduction in prices, leading to trimming out of inefficient capacity and a new equilibrium at a higher efficiency than before.

That's the economic cycle.

> price inflation is a necessary consequence of monetary inflation.

But not vice versa, you don't need monetary policy to have inflation, you don't even need a monetary system, or even "money" or currency. Inflation is just a continuous change in value between two goods due to a difference in supply/demand between the two. If there were only two commodities in the world, A and B, both with the same demand, but A is being produced at faster rates than B, there would be inflation.

> a gradual increase in prices is a sign that more dollars are chasing the same amount of goods, ceteris paribus.

Indeed, so there will be more dollars invested in supplying those goods.

> not sure that condescension is warranted.

That's not a condescension, it is basic economics.

[tensor_rank_0]

> nflation is good not because of inflation itself, but because of what it signals: a growth in demand outpacing the growth in supply.

price inflation is a signal of monetary inflation. you appear to be confusing price inflation with an increase in prices due to increased demand.

> If supply is not outpacing demand, there are no investments in additional capacity.

actually as long as marginal profit is positive there is an incentive to invest in capital goods.

> No, that's how gains in productivity work.

malinvestment is not productive, in fact it is destructive.

> But not vice versa, you don't need monetary policy to have inflation, you don't even need a monetary system, or even "money" or currency. Inflation is just a continuous change in value between two goods due to a difference in supply/demand between the two. If there were only two commodities in the world, A and B, both with the same demand, but A is being produced at faster rates than B, there would be inflation.

'monetary inflation' as defined in basic economics is an increase in the money supply. no one said you need monetary policy for the money supply to increase.

> even need a monetary system, or even "money" or currency.

thats very interesting, do you have a citation?

> As demand increases, multiple agents will invest independently to supply that demand, leading to oversupply, leading to reduction in prices, leading to trimming out of inefficient capacity and a new equilibrium at a higher efficiency than before.

thats how price signals work in a normal market. now consider what happens if a counterfeiter creates a bunch of fake dollars and spends them. people see the influx of cash, interpret it as effective demand, and invest in capital goods. then the counterfeiter gets caught and the money dries up, and all these businesses have excess capacity that shouldn't have been built in the first place. textbook malinvestment.

the same thing occurs when the government inflates the money supply, except the "counterfeiting" is legal and "we as society" accept this because the money is spent in "politically acceptable" purposes. it still causes malinvestment. which is something you can find in an intro to macro textbook.

> That's not a condescension, it is basic economics.

actually its quite condescending and it would help if you guys would educate yourselves on basic econ before presuming to lecture others on the subject. reading a basic macroeconomics textbook would do wonders for your perspective.

[crdoconnor]

>inflation is good for net debtors and bad for savers.

With "savers" being a close approximation of "the rich" and debtors being another word for "the poor".

>price inflation is a necessary consequence of monetary inflation.

Counter-intuitively, it actually isn't a necessary consequence - not if velocity of the new money grinds to a halt after creation. Newly created has to be spent and respent and respent and so on for it to cause price inflation.

There are many ways that this can happen - e.g. if the money just ends up parked in a bank account or if the dampening effect of industrial slack offsets the creation of new money (i.e. a glut of inventory soaks up the excess cash).

>basic economics distinguishes between price inflation as a result of monetary inflation and price increases due to other reasons.

Economists actually get this wrong all the damn time. Monetarists (like Milton Friedman) attributed price inflation due to the 1970s oil shock to a so called excess expansion in the money supply that didn't happen.

Essentially, Saudi princes siphoning off more wealth via higher oil prices was blamed on money printing rather than cartelization, and it was decided that "debtors" should be the ones to take the financial hit for that by jacking up interest rates.

[tensor_rank_0]

> With "savers" being a close approximation of "the rich" and debtors being another word for "the poor".

thats false. many rich hold vast amounts of debt, which makes them benefit from inflation. also relevant is the discouraging effect of monetary inflation on savings. so poor people are incentivized to live paycheck to paycheck

> Counter-intuitively, it actually isn't a necessary consequence - not if velocity of the new money grinds to a halt after creation. Newly created has to be spent and respent and respent and so on for it to cause price inflation.

thats true, if the money is never spent. just like filling up your gas tank doesn't contribute to climate change if no one ever burns the fuel.

in the real world, people deposit that money in banks, who loan a multiple of their deposits out. so that money actually gets turned into debt and spent on a lot of stuff. thereby bidding up the price of stuff, which is price inflation as a result of monetary inflation.

> dampening effect of industrial slack offsets the creation of new money (i.e. a glut of inventory soaks up the excess cash).

that means that price inflation soaked up the decrease in prices that everyone in the market would have enjoyed. thats an example of how monetary inflation robs everyone except the first people to get the new money.

> Economists actually get this wrong all the damn time.

they still know that the difference exists, which is something that the parent comment apparently didn't realize.

[skookumchuck]

> Inflation is good.

As I said. I bet you've heard that your whole life, too. It's good to question things you've heard your whole life.

> Inflation comes from a imbalance in supply and demand.

Inflation comes from the government issuing money at a faster rate than the economy grows. The reason it does that is to spend more money without raising taxes. This is sold to the citizens as being "good", and any deleterious effects are blamed on mumbo jumbo theories like "wage-price spirals" and "cost-push".

Keep in mind that there's no free lunch when it comes to economics, just like there's no free energy in physics. Any economic theory that creates something out of nothing is false - you don't need to understand it to know it is false. Just like when some crackpot comes to you with a perpetual motion machine, you know it's a fraud even if you don't examine his theory to find out where he went into the ditch.

[ucaetano]

> As I said. I bet you've heard that your whole life, too. It's good to question things you've heard your whole life.

Sure, and it is questioned. But this isn't just "something I've heard", but something me, and many others, have studied to exhaustion. It's basic economics. Like gravity. When was the last time you jumped out of a window just to question gravity?

> Inflation comes from the government issuing money at a faster rate than the economy grows.

Wrong. That can be one mechanism of inflation, but not the only one. There are many more sources of inflation. For example, the new world gold mines.

> Any economic theory that creates something out of nothing is false - you don't need to understand it to know it is false.

???

[AnimalMuppet]

Some have successfully used fiat money for several decades. Some haven't (Venezuela and Zimbabwe recently, Germany before World War II, probably others).

[adrianratnapala]

Right. It only really shows that some countries are trusted.

There are also countries that are (or were) not trusted but have been able to use paper money successfully by pegging their own currencies to those of other countries.

[freejulian]

Inflation is nothing more than a wealth transfer from the working class to the capitalist class.

[colanderman]

In that it conveniently masks wage stagnation or recession, sure. But I'm not sure I agree with you otherwise, can you expound? Deflationary systems are great for capitalists. (See: NYC's taxi medallions and SF real estate.)

[freejulian]

Having to fight with your employer year after year for the same wage? Working class unable to effectively save because interest rates are well below the rate of inflation? Unable to reason about what's a reasonable price because the central banks keep manipulating your measurement stick?

It's not a coincidence that wages decoupled from productivity around the same time the US got off the gold standard.

It's also not a coincidence that endless wars have only been made possible by the governments ability to print money (back when funding of a war was explicit via taxation people actually cared).

I'd love to hear your reasons why inflation is good for me -- someone with little money simply trying to save for a home which is increasingly out of reach each year.

[roenxi]

I don't like inflation and a lot of the points you raise are things that are a problem, but you are raising them in a context that suggests 'it is a class war the capitalists want it this way'.

Most of the points you are raising aren't about capitalists, they are just about entrenched power structures. Capitalists are a different group of people (eg, small business owners). You should find someone else to blame :P.

> Having to fight with your employer year after year for the same wage?

Real wages tend to whatever the market clearing price is. Deflation isn't what makes employees have to fight to keep the same wages, it probably some combination of real factors like:

* Competition from cheap overseas labour

* reduced need for labour in the supply chain

* General increases in supply of labour that exceed growith in supply

Inflation makes it easier to miss, but the capitalists don't really benefit in any meaningful way here.

> Working class unable to effectively save because interest rates are well below the rate of inflation?

Nobody benefits from this. The way our the modern (>1960s) political climate is, the capitalists will end up paying for welfare for the working class to suplpiment their low savings.

> Unable to reason about what's a reasonable price because the central banks keep manipulating your measurement stick?

Affects everyone, not necessarily to the advantage of anyone.

[tensor_rank_0]

well when you can fund giant capital expenditures with debt, you can buy up enough resources to build a company with current dollars, and pay for them with future (inflated) dollars. from this perspective, inflation is basically a discount on the interest you pay on your loan. inflation is good for debtors. contrariwise, deflation is good for savers.

[colanderman]

Deflation is good for savers if your savings is in terms of currency. Most people with "retirement" savings have them in a 401k, which isn't the greatest due to management fees, but at least it's roughly shielded from inflation.

[romwell]

>The reason why precious metals have been an important part of money is trust -- an issue which the author fails to address.

The author does not fail to address this:

>We find, however, the same pride of accuracy with the Roman mints; and also in later days when the coinage was of base metal, the directions to the masters of the mints as to the weight, alloy and design were just as careful, although the value of the coin could not thereby be affected. Accuracy was important more to enable the public to distinguish between a true and a counterfeit coin than for any other reason.

The need for a strong government to make its subjects accept coins is also talked about in detail, e.g.:

>There can be no profit from minting coins of their full value in metal, but rather a loss, and it is impossible to think that such disagreeable punishments would have been necessary to force the public to accept such coins, so that it is practically certain that they must have been below their face value and therefore were tokens, just as were those of earlier days.

What you said is mirrored in the article.

[neilwilson]

To be a sovereign you have a loyal gang around you. That allows you to impose a liability on any mere individual in your realm, then offer a token to settle that liability in return for some of the individual's time.

If they refuse you execute them and confiscate their property. A total loss of time.

Or perhaps just remove their liberty - which is still a significant loss of time.

As the individual do you take the deal or stand the consequences?

Nothing to do with trust. Everything to do with power.

[goptimize]

Try to read the actual article. Your comment is based on a few paragraphs you found and defigured for your own satisfaction.