|
|
|
|
|
by MrRadar
2726 days ago
|
|
Keep in mind at the time that the world was on the gold standard so the value of every currency was measured against gold (and all currencies were, in theory, convertible directly to gold). The Gold Dollar[1] was an actual coin (made of an alloy of 90% gold and 10% copper) in circulation at the time so it was literally impossible for it to be worth less than its face value under the gold standard. In contrast Greenbacks (paper money issued by the US government) were only a promise to provide gold in exchange for the note. The value of the greenback relative to hard currency would have effectively been a measurement of how much faith people would have had that the government could make good on that promise. During the civil war, when the government was short on cash due to half their tax base leaving and the enormous costs of fighting the war, it's unlikely they would have been able to redeem all of those Greenbacks for hard currency (and in fact that was the whole reason they printed them: they didn't have enough hard currency to mint new coins) so under those conditions it's only rational that Greenbacks would trade at a discount. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_dollar |
|
Also if I'm a European cotton trader, do I want to be left with north US currency if the south won, and visa versa?
So yes the gold itself has a value, but as the article itself shows, currency without backing has value.
With that in mind, I would prefer to see a comparison to an independent currency.