dontdeBasemebro
Big Eyed Bug
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Obviously the currency we are forced to use now represents a lurid combination of dent and nothing.
However, in the past much of the world's currency represented real amounts of precious metals, even if the currency itself was made of paper (or digital for that matter). It was then needed to contrive some sort of way to relate a quantity of currency to a quantity of metal.
This could be done by law, like the Coinage Act of 1792. It could probably be done via bureaucratic methods without necessarily involving congress (in violation of the Constitution as I read it). Or, it could come about naturally through market forces.
While I would strongly prefer a defined exchange rate between paper currency and precious metals to what we currently have, I frankly don't think that it is good or necessary to obscure a measured quantity of metal with unrelated names.
For instance, if we set firmly that 1 oz of pure silver is equal to 1 dollar and always will be, then there is no need for the name "dollar". Since 1 oz is the known measurement, any other name seems to create confuse rather than clarify what that money actually is.
I don't see a problem with saying a steak dinner costs 1/2 Ag rather than go through the process of: dinner costs $20, 1 oz Ag = $40, therefore dinner = 0.5 oz Ag. It is a pointless exercise in my opinion. And, frankly, I think such schemes may have been intended to decouple the relationship between value and physical metal in the minds of the populace so that money could be further removed from physical quantities and thus inflated greatly, all without notice or complaint from the people.
An ounce by any other name would weigh as much.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Just my 0.000588408355398647 oz Ag.
However, in the past much of the world's currency represented real amounts of precious metals, even if the currency itself was made of paper (or digital for that matter). It was then needed to contrive some sort of way to relate a quantity of currency to a quantity of metal.
This could be done by law, like the Coinage Act of 1792. It could probably be done via bureaucratic methods without necessarily involving congress (in violation of the Constitution as I read it). Or, it could come about naturally through market forces.
While I would strongly prefer a defined exchange rate between paper currency and precious metals to what we currently have, I frankly don't think that it is good or necessary to obscure a measured quantity of metal with unrelated names.
For instance, if we set firmly that 1 oz of pure silver is equal to 1 dollar and always will be, then there is no need for the name "dollar". Since 1 oz is the known measurement, any other name seems to create confuse rather than clarify what that money actually is.
I don't see a problem with saying a steak dinner costs 1/2 Ag rather than go through the process of: dinner costs $20, 1 oz Ag = $40, therefore dinner = 0.5 oz Ag. It is a pointless exercise in my opinion. And, frankly, I think such schemes may have been intended to decouple the relationship between value and physical metal in the minds of the populace so that money could be further removed from physical quantities and thus inflated greatly, all without notice or complaint from the people.
An ounce by any other name would weigh as much.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Just my 0.000588408355398647 oz Ag.