me:
> Besides pure commodity money, pure fiat money doesn't involve the
> creation of debt. The state simply uses its power to restrict the
> production of paper money, keeping it scarce. I guess you could say
> that the state "owes a debt" to the people it dominates, but that's
> stretching it. It's not a legally enforceable debt.

Nathan writes:
> money is government liabilities. just because these liabilities can't
> be exchanged for physical assets, doesn't mean they are not
> liabilities.

My impression is that Federal Reserve liabilities are simply an
accounting fiction (unless they are to people outside of the U.S.) The
fact that they can be an accounting fiction rather than an actual
liability reflects the fact that the Fed is an agent of the state and
relies on the state's power.

Back in the 1950s, if I took a "silver certificate" bill to the bank,
I could exchange it for silver dimes, which the bank got from the Fed:
the Fed had to redeem its debt -- the silver certificate -- with
actual silver (and it had a stash of silver produced by the U.S.
treasury available to pay people like me). The value of the paper
money (commodity-backed money) was limited by the scarcity-value of
silver, though even in those days there were institutional barriers to
make sure that those constraints weren't binding.

Nowadays, if I take my "Federal Reserve Note" to the bank, all I can
get is other Federal Reserve Notes (or coins from the Treasury, which
are much the same). The Fed's debt to me is redeemed using other IOUs
from the Fed (or Treasury) and nothing else. But these "IOUs" are more
accounting fictions (based on state power) than they are IOUs in the
normal sense of the word. I can't go to court to force the Fed to pay
me silver, gold, or any other physical asset.

Luckily for us (and because the Fed is ruled by financiers and their
economist allies), the Fed keeps the US$ scarce, so that I don't mind
having my Federal Reserve notes exchanged for similar "IOUs."

> further, is it really the restriction of paper money
> production (now electronic signals sent through a keyboard) that gives
> money value? a government could issue 1 singular dollar, but that
> money won't have any value if no one needs dollars to settle their
> debts.

Being scarce is necessary but not sufficient. If the government issued
only one dollar, it wouldn't survive competition with other would-be
moneys if it wasn't _easily divisible_ (and portable, non-toxic, etc.)
People would use pure-credit money or commodity money instead; they
might decide to use Canadian dollars. (my lord!)

If the dollar _were_ divisible, a single mill (1/10 of a cent) would
be worth a lot. Likely people would use mini-mills or nano-mills in
order to do exchanges.

> there. i just issued you 500 trillion Tankus's. as awesome as
> it is for you that you have them, you are not able to acquire any
> physical assets with them. they are still however, a liability to me.
> they would have value however, if i promised to give you some physical
> asset or a certain amount of labor hours if you went to redeem them.

As noted in a previous missive, Tanki are debt instruments, not money.
(Though much of actually-existing money is debt, e.g., checking
account balances, not all debt is money.) In this case, they are debts
backed by physical commodities or labor-time. Since (I assume) that
you only have a limited amount of labor-time and physical assets to
provide, that severely limits the ability of Tanki to circulate as an
actual money.

If, on the other hand, you started printing up a lot of them (so that
they could be used in circulation, as money), getting way beyond the
promised backing of physical assets of labor-time, the Tanki would
lose their scarcity value and would no longer be useful as money.

> they would also have value if i had a whole bunch of weapons and told
> a whole bunch of people that i will do very bad things to them if they
> don't go out and earn Tankus's. either way however, they are still a
> liability to me and an asset to you. and very obviously, it is the
> "taxes" i imposed through force that gave them value, not the
> restriction of their supply.

If you had the power to be the state, to force the circulation of the
fiat Tanki (that is, to make them artificially scarce), then they
would be money (assuming that they're divisible, etc.)  Forcing people
to pay taxes using Tanki is part of keeping them artificially scarce.
Scarcity isn't simply a matter of supply; demand also plays a role:
there's no way to keep the price of a money above its cost of
production if no-one wants them.

It's true that if I had Tanki, they would officially be your liability
to me (and to other holders of Tanki). But all I could do with them is
trade them for other Tanki -- unless they were truly backed by "some
physical asset [e.g., gold] or a certain amount of labor hours." If
that backing is genuine, we're talking about a commodity-backed money
system rather than a pure fiat-money system.

My impression is that the value of real-world commodity-backed moneys
are typically based not only on the central bank's stash of gold
(etc.) but also state power. That's why in the history of money, we so
often see paper money circulating inside a country (where the state
has its power) but gold being used as international money (if there's
no world state); we also see the actual purchasing power of a "pound"
of commodity-backed currency differing for awhile from a "pound" of
the commodity backing it will buy -- until the currency has to be
devalued (or less likely, revalued) in terms of the commodity money.

Nowadays, the U.S. operates somewhat as a state on the world stage (or
as close to be a world state as has ever existed), so that its fiat
money can circulate internationally. Since it's not a true world
state, the status of the US$ as a world money is hardly guaranteed.
-- 
Jim Devine /  "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your
own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to