Patrick,
> Danny, in your 9-Oct post you described how "In some places it [money] > somehow evolved from gold towards paper currency in a rather smooth > transition." I would like to hear about those places and times. Probably renaissance Italy is the best example, but again I didn't live in these times, so no guarantee. Wherever paper money has floated alongside gold and solver coins, it seems to me that people had choice. Exactly how "rather smooth" the transition has been in these historical examples, I don't know. My point is not that it has been done with complete absence of force in the past, my point is that it is technically possible. > Because it sure was NOT the United States in 1933. I agree that the US is not a good example. > > The people who manage a currency (which can be a private group or a > > government), can simply announce a change in the 'terms of use' > > effective a > > certain date in the future. If the currency is operating in a free > > market, > > people have the possibility to redeem their currency for gold while > > they > > still can, or exchange them for another currency of their choice. > > But in the United States, the thugs outlawed redeeming currency for > gold. Yes, and that's not right. > It would be like e-gold announcing a change in the "terms of use," > stating that their digital units would no longer be redeemable for gold > -- RIGHT NOW. Furthermore, e-gold would threaten to put in prison > anyone they caught possessing gold. That would be the equivalent of what the USA did. > Specifically, if you had a gold certificate you knew would > become unredeemable at a specific time, would you really hold onto it > past that time? Wouldn't you go ahead and redeem it for gold? And > wouldn't the threat of imprisonment be just about the only thing that > could prevent you from redeeming it for gold? I would not necessarily redeem if the people who are issuing the paper are suffciently thrustworthy and have a solid reputation. They will also need to outline how they will manage the paper after it is no more redeemable. Accepting paper currency is not really different from accepting a check. You only do it when you trust the person who issues the currency or the check. But besides the possibility I described there are also other methods to introduce paper currency. It is possible to issue paper that is nothing but the promis of a future service. For example public transport companies already issue such paper. Technically this is paper money and there is no reason why people could not use bus or airline tickets to pay for something else. Nobody forces people to accept bus or airline tickets, you cannot redeem them for gold, they may go up or down in value, the bus company can go out of business leaving the paper worthless... Publicly traded stocks can also be paper money. When stocks were still printed on paper it was not so uncommon to see them used as payment. Stocks cannot be redeemed for anything. Technically they represent a fixed part of the company, but often companies have an official book value of zero or even below zero.. Stocks have not seen the daylight by use of force.. Clearly, use of force is not to only way to introduce paper money. And because some paper currencies were enforced in the past, does not mean that paper money is a bad idea. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
