This was how money worked in the United states until the end of the 19th century. No clear market winner emerged. It was a mess.
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 00:13:18 Andy Bradford wrote: <snip> > As long as there is no grant of monopoly by a State, will not the market > produce a money that is economically superior (e.g. higher quality at > non-monopoly prices)? Or do you believe that a monopoly in the > production of money does not follow the same economic logic that says > that relative to markets in which open competition exists, monopoly in > markets produces a poorer quality good at higher prices? > > I can imagine a large number of money making entrepreneurs entering the > market, and many of them failing. It's also entirely possible, and > likely, that market participants will eventually settle on just one > or even two monies that are the so-called ``universally accepted'' > currencies. How can we know if monies are not allowed to compete? I > don't consider the EUR and the USD to be an example of competition in > this case, at least not for the majority of market participants (perhaps > for well connected bankers, but they are part of the banking cartel). > > Andy /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
