The joke is it's not about "money" it's about trust and all the wrinkles and diversions intended to simulate trust aren't worth a wooden nickel if they are comprehended as what they unquestionably are: simulacra. See Blade Runner for an entertaining take on the relationship between _replication_ and trust (reciprocal empathy).
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > That's right. The law explicit limits paper money but not coins. > And by the way, the whole point of seigniorage is for the metal-value > of the coin to be less than its declared face value. That's how you > make money. Just as with counterfeiting, your profit is the face > value of the money you print minus production expenses. > > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Jeffrey Fisher <[email protected]>wrote: > >> i thought the law does distinguish between paper money and coins, and >> that's why the coin. >> >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:19 PM, socialismorbarbarism < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yes, yes, I get all that. What I don't understand is: Why a *coin*? >>> Why, in the absence of a law specifically banning the issuance of >>> paper, is this necessary? Why not paper? >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
