April 13, 2011
— Monty (Part one of this series can be found here.)
It's a deceptively simple question: "What is money?"
Classically, the answer comes in three parts: it is a unit of account, a store of value, and a medium of exchange.
But what does that really mean? And there seems to be so many different ways of describing money -- are they all the same thing? Note: we are not talking about finance, which is a different and vastly more complicated subject. We are simply talking about money, as both an idea and an economic reality.
Let's begin by defining our terms.
Money: An abstraction, an expression of an idea of a "medium of exchange". A general description of trade-units that are used in the buying and selling of goods and services in an economy.
Currency: A manufactured good specifically intended for use as money, an actualization of the "money" idea. ("Currency" is to "money" what "house" is to "home".) Many people use "currency" and "money" interchangeably, though. Currency can be made of something with intrinsic value, like gold or silver; this is called "specie" currency. Or it can be a "fiat" currency, where the the currency is backed by nothing more than the say-so of the issuer (usually a sovereign). In our age, nearly all currency is fiat currency.
Legal Tender: Not all money is currency, and not all currency is legal tender. "Legal Tender" is a special kind of currency recognized and sanctioned by a ruling sovereign or government, and bound in law as the "official" currency. In most modern nations, national governments hold monopoly control over issuance of the currency and generally declare the national currency to be the only "legal tender" currency in use. Thus, an American shopkeeper must accept US Dollars as payment for goods or services. He can accept, say, British Pounds or Euros or Japanese Yen instead -- these are negotiable currencies, after all -- but they are not legal tender in the United States. A shopkeeper is not obligated to accept any other currency as payment; only the authorized legal tender (US Dollars).
Gold and silver have proven popular as currency over the ages because they have useful properties for that purpose. Gold and silver are elements, and thus eternal for all intents and purposes; they don't rot, degrade, evaporate, or waste away. They are malleable and can be easily worked, and any tampering or debasement can be gauged fairly easily. Conventions have come about that standardize the weights and measures of gold and silver, making their use more universal. (A Troy ounce of gold is the same in America, in Russia, or in China.) The metals are scarce but not too scarce. They are aesthetically pleasing to look at, and have alternate uses in industry and culture. Gold and silver are considered by many people to have intrinsic (i.e., "specie") value, and this perception has remained constant over many thousands of years of human history. (The United States still issues specie currency in small amounts. A 1oz "gold eagle" coin is legal tender, though the legal tender value of the coin is only $50, while the bullion value of the metal is much, much higher -- around $1460/oz at this writing.)
The main thing to remember about currency, or money in the abstract, is that it is valued relative to the goods and services it can purchase rather than at some fixed benchmark rate. When someone asks, "What's a dollar worth?", they're really asking what you can buy with a dollar. And the answer is: "A dollar is worth one candy bar. Or 5% of a decent shirt. Or one-fifth of a gallon of gas. Or about one-third of a loaf of bread. Or...." And so on. A dollar doesn't have a fixed value to which goods and services are pegged; rather the reverse. This is especially true of a fiat currency (though the "innate value" of specie currencies is a matter of debate -- gold, after all, is only worth something because we agree that it is; it's just metal).
Physical currencies can be adulterated or debased to artificially inflate their value. With a metal coin, for example, this can be done either by making the physical coin smaller but leaving the denomination the same; or by adulterating the gold or silver with baser (and hence less precious) metal. Sovereign issuers of currency have found this to be an attractive avenue for paying for foreign adventures or projects at home when they find themselves embarrassed for funds and cannot borrow. But too much of this kind of thing leads to inflation: when the amount of currency in circulation outstrips the ability of the economy to absorb it. Deflation, in contrast, is a general decrease in prices for goods and services, which sometimes can mean that producers are having to sell their goods at or below the cost of manufacture -- which means deflation is a symptom of deeper economic ills.
Too much inflation or deflation is bad, but generally inflation is viewed as the lesser of the evils. In fact some currency inflation is necessary because the money-supply must keep pace with the growth of the economy. It is only when the money-supply outstrips the growth of the underlying economy that inflation gets to be a problem. But the trick of finding that "sweet spot" has escaped every sovereign issuer of currency in the history of the world. The siren song of currency inflation is just too strong for most sovereigns to ignore.
Currencies are also manufactured goods, and are thus prone to the same laws of supply and demand as other goods. Until fairly modern times, shortage of physical currency was a real problem in most money-based economies (thus the terrible pull towards debasement of said currency). This is why barter often operates side-by-side with money in an economy -- often, money is simply not available to facilitate transactions.
There are other kinds of "money" that are not legal tender or even currency. Generally, anything that can be used as money is money.
Forms of "money" include: Personal checks (drafts against bank accounts, technically), gemstones, subway tokens, Skee-Ball tickets, box-tops, stamps, coupons, gift-cards, and all manner of other things. Prior to the 20th century in America (and elsewhere), banks would often issue "bank notes" -- a kind of private currency backed by the individual banks. In early times, "warehouse receipts" prefigured paper currency -- a tradesman would store his barter goods in a warehouse, and receive a receipt in return for his deposit; this receipt would then be used in lieu of the actual goods for conducting transactions. (The warehouses themselves would in due time morph into banks.)
Historically, the line between barter and money-driven economies is blurred because certain commodities (salt, grains, etc.) are used as money. Technically their use was in a barter context -- a one-to-one transaction between counterparties, trading salt for butter or sugar, for example -- but e.g. salt was often used as a generic medium of exchange, so it should be considered "money" in that context. (Salt was scarce in many areas, and thus had real intrinsic value, which made it useful as a kind of money. It was also durable, portable, and easily weighed and measured.) Barter and money exist side-by-side in many economies even to this day.
The whole concept of "money" is undergoing a transformation in this digital age, because physical manifestations of money (currency, legal tender) are becoming less important as transactions move into the digital realm. Not many people in modern economies have the bulk of their income in actual currency; most of their income exists as digital bits in a computer somewhere. And to buy things, people write checks or use check-cards or use automatic bank-withdrawal. Most of our "money" never exists in physical form at all; it's simply a stream of electrons moving to and fro in cyberspace.
Posted by: Monty at
05:09 AM
| Comments (77)
Post contains 1336 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: EC at April 13, 2011 05:14 AM (GQ8sn)
As they say......BONED.
Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at April 13, 2011 05:16 AM (MPtFW)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at April 13, 2011 05:16 AM (1Jaio)
money is the root of all evil. but let's dig deeper.
women = time x money
time = money, so therefore women = money x money
money = root of all evil, so
women = (square root of evil)(square root of evil) = square root of evil squared
women = evil
Posted by: irrelevence at April 13, 2011 05:22 AM (/Mla1)
This is especially true of a fiat currency (though the "innate value" of specie currencies is a matter of debate -- gold, after all, is only worth something because we agree that it is; it's just metal).
I agree with most of the post, but I believe a key item was overlooked. The "legal tender" section came close to covering it, but incompletely.
You mention how the US shop keeper must accept dollars. This is fundamentally true. However, the reason he must (and all of us must) accept dollars is simpler. We don't need a law to tell us to take dollars. The reason they are necessary is because the dollar is the unit with which we pay TAX.
The need to pay tax (lest men with guns come to take us away to prison) is why we must obtain dollars for at least a significant portion of our incomes. The fact that we all need them is why we can all trade in them - there will always be a demand for dollars by all Americans who pay tax. It is what insures that the government will always be able to buy our goods and services using the currency that it controls. It is vital to remember that the true power behind all fiat currency is the government's coercive taxing power.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 13, 2011 05:24 AM (xUM1Q)
If the increase in the money supply is done accurately, there will be no price inflation.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 13, 2011 05:28 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: polynikes at April 13, 2011 05:45 AM (1URKd)
* An important component of commodity money like gold or silver (as opposed to fiat money, created by the government, or credit money issued by creditors) is that it's not only malleable (as Monty correctly points out), but that it's very very easy to subdivide into smaller units. This is why things like gold, silver, tobacco, etc... have been monetary bases, while cows have not. It's much much easier to split off a grain of gold, and still have useful gold, than it is to chop off a hunk of cow leg and still have a useful cow (for either party).
* I wouldn't agree that inflation is better than deflation. Inflation is only better than deflation if you don't hold cash assets or are in debt. If you're a creditor, inflation completely fucks you sideways, because you make your loans based on an assumption about what money will be worth tomorrow. If that assumption is drastically off, you're up shit's creek without a paddle, because you're still only owed the original cost of the loan, but those dollars are significantly less valuable. There are people for whom inflation is beneficial, namely holders of valuable physical assets, but if you're carrying any serious sized chunk of currency, it's bad news. Inflationary pressures on goods and services also tend to lag equivalent pressure on wages, so there's a substantial quality of life cost to it as well.
On the other hand, if you're holding a lot of cash, or are a creditor, you like deflation. Your cash is suddenly more valuable than it was when you got it, you've made a profit simply by holding onto your money. If you're a creditor, you get back more value than you originally intended to. Wages tend to respond to deflation faster than they do inflation though, as employers are much more quick to eliminate a source of losses than they are to increase an employees wages. If you're a debtor, of course, deflation fucks you, as the dollars you use to repay your debts are worth more than you expected them to be. You're also boned if you don't have cash reserves.
* I'm not sure that monetary inflation is necessary to keep up with economic expansion. There's no reason that a slow, natural rate of deflation wouldn't serve the exact same purpose.
The very very very very very best book you can read on money is "The Theory of Money and Credit" by Ludwig van Mises. It seems a little dry at first, because you're like "fucking duh, of course this is how money works", but as Mises goes through the history of the formation of money, the way various types of money operate in an economy, values of money, etc..., you find yourself understanding a lot of things that you didn't even realize were relevant before you picked it up.
Nice job again though, Monty!
Posted by: DMXRoid at April 13, 2011 05:45 AM (vd872)
Posted by: Larry Summers at April 13, 2011 05:46 AM (RxKkR)
Posted by: DMXRoid at April 13, 2011 05:50 AM (vd872)
Posted by: Monty at April 13, 2011 05:54 AM (4Pleu)
Most of our "money" never exists in physical form at all; it's simply a stream of electrons moving to and fro in cyberspace.
It would seem to me that this system (and I participate in it) would be incredibly vulnerable to a myriad of liabilities. A computer crash, or a fire could make a rich man into a pauper. It worries me. I am posting with a fucked up computer right now.
Posted by: maddogg at April 13, 2011 05:54 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: 120 Skee-Ball Tickets at April 13, 2011 05:56 AM (UAUr6)
Posted by: DMXRoid at April 13, 2011 09:50 AM (vd872)
The destruction of an economy and a society because of inflation is well documented The increase in prices is instantly noticeable, and its malign effects are immediate.
Deflation is a much less concrete concept for most people. I can't think of a good example of the destructive force of deflation. Perhaps Japan, but their problems are cultural as well as monetary.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 13, 2011 05:57 AM (LH6ir)
I further maintain that the depression was CAUSED by the government intervention in the money supply and the markets.
As has every damn financial panic or recession we have had in this country since it was founded.
The government has never 'fixed" a recession, it simply causes them. When it finally gets "fixed" it is either despite the government or because the government decides to back off on their meddling for a while.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 05:58 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: rightzilla at April 13, 2011 06:00 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: Federal Reserve at April 13, 2011 06:00 AM (UAUr6)
Posted by: DMXRoid at April 13, 2011 06:02 AM (vd872)
Posted by: rightzilla at April 13, 2011 06:02 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: Smart-ass moron #277 at April 13, 2011 06:03 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: rightzilla at April 13, 2011 06:04 AM (SPVfc)
You're wrong on this one, Monty:
Legal Tender: Not all money is currency, and not all currency is legal tender. "Legal Tender" is a special kind of currency recognized and sanctioned by a ruling sovereign or government, and bound in law as the "official" currency. In most modern nations, national governments hold monopoly control over issuance of the currency and generally declare the national currency to be the only "legal tender" currency in use. Thus, an American shopkeeper must accept US Dollars as payment for goods or services. He can accept, say, British Pounds or Euros or Japanese Yen instead -- these are negotiable currencies, after all -- but they are not legal tender in the United States. A shopkeeper is not obligated to accept any other currency as payment; only the authorized legal tender (US Dollars).
A co-worker of mine showed up too late to get a company hotel room so he tried to get one at the next door hotel paying with cash. They wouldn't take his money; credit only. The guy went nuts, reading all of the stuff off of his money like "good for all debts public and private". The hotel called the police. The police came and backed up the hotel, but talked them into renting a room for cash for one night just to save everybody a lot of grief.
I have subsequently read of court cases where judges have ruled that a vendor does not need to accept currency and can demand payment only in the form of credit or cash (AmEx type) cards.
Posted by: Ed Anger at April 13, 2011 06:04 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: rightzilla at April 13, 2011 10:02 AM (SPVfc)
Hmm... Once wonders where the card gets swiped.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 13, 2011 06:05 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: DMXRoid at April 13, 2011 09:45 AM (vd872)
Eh? I have no idea what you mean (not snark). Adding money to a growing economy will keep prices stable. Assume x dollars/unit of output = perfect ratio. Keeping that ratio constant will provide relatively unchanging pricing, and interest rates don't change, so planning is easier.
Allowing deflation will do what?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 13, 2011 06:05 AM (LH6ir)
The only thing I would add would be what Adam Smith said on the subject, as he helps to better understand the nature of money:
" ...Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command..."
Posted by: Son of Liberty at April 13, 2011 06:06 AM (gtZwa)
In today's environment just because a judge rules one way doesn't necessarily mean that it is legal. Judges are no longer enforcers of law. They are enforcers of what ever political Party they belong to.
In the case above they are the enforcers of local businessmen.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 06:07 AM (M9Ie6)
Revealed! Dems new sinister tactic to sucker leftist idiots: "Ok. You fucked up all those times we lied and cheated you, but you can trust us this time. Really"
Really very cruel and calculated when you think about it. Taking advantage of the poor helpless imbiciles like that.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at April 13, 2011 06:07 AM (jx2j9)
Well, the business cycle has a huge amount to do with recessions, but I agree that the depression was caused by stupid monetary and trade policy.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 13, 2011 06:07 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: andycanuck at April 13, 2011 06:07 AM (Y1DZt)
Posted by: toby928™: stating the obvious, again at April 13, 2011 06:08 AM (GTbGH)
I will lay you odd of dollars to donuts that if you go back and look at past slumps in buisness cycles you will find government intervention poking its ugly head in them to cause them.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 06:10 AM (M9Ie6)
There are other kinds of "money" that are not legal tender or even currency.
Generally, anything that can be used as money is money.
I kept my mediocre old Econ 101 textbook specifically because it had one illustration of this. There's a one page article about Angola during the civil war in the 70s-80s, where the most used form of money was beer. Canned beer. The NGOs and native embassy staff workers would be paid largely in cases of beer, which would be traded for whatever goods you needed. The paper money was largely worthless, unless you went to one of the state stores for your rationed foodstuffs.
Funny, no one drank much of the beer, it was too valuable.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 13, 2011 06:12 AM (9daa6)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 13, 2011 06:12 AM (eOXTH)
Why slow? I would hope that the deflation in manufactured goods comes as a result of improved productivity, and that isn't a slow or smooth progression.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 13, 2011 06:12 AM (LH6ir)
As I said in the previous thread, we haven't had a capitalist economy in this country since the early 1800s.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 06:12 AM (M9Ie6)
I agree. But the recessions will come regardless. The government usually makes them worse.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 13, 2011 06:13 AM (LH6ir)
On the whole though, more damage can--and is--done by entirely legitimate traders with ill intent. (I'm looking right at you, Mr. Soros.)
Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at April 13, 2011 06:14 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Monty at April 13, 2011 06:14 AM (4Pleu)
I'm speaking in the aggregate. Some products and service will probably move quickly, depending on how you define quickly. But I think productivity, overall, does change rather slowly. There is resistance to productivity increases at many levels. YMMV.
Posted by: toby928™: stating the obvious, again at April 13, 2011 06:16 AM (GTbGH)
This also assumes improvable processes and raw materials are the only expenses involved. They seldom are, and that's typically the problem, though I'm guessing Monty will be going over those issues in due time. Not that anyone here should have difficulty figuring out the other factors...
Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at April 13, 2011 06:17 AM (GBXon)
Some of the assumptions in this example aren't exactly true, but they serve to illustrate the point. Say I have an economy where the only good produced is widgets, and 100 widgets are produced every year, and each widget sells for 1 oz of gold. In that same economy, there's 100 oz of gold, so there's exactly as much money as is necessary to purchase all the widgets produced (assume that widgets are non-durable goods, that nobody engages in arbitrage, etc, so there's no re-sale).
So, say someone figures out how to produce 110 widgets using the same factors of input. The productive output of the economy has increased by 10%. With inflation as the solution, the correct response would be to add another 10 oz of gold to the economy, thus keeping the nominal price of widgets at 1 oz/widget.
On the other hand, the deflationary (and, I think, the more natural ) solution would be to allow the nominal price of widgets to fall to .91 oz. The relative value of widgets hasn't changed, just the nominal money price. Yes, you can buy more widgets with one oz of gold than you could before, but there are more widgets to buy, so the ratio between the amount of money in circulation and the goods and services that money chases is unchanged.
I don't see a real downside to that, and I see a huge upside in that an inflationary policy would require a.) tinkering over the "correct" amount of money to have in the system, as opposed to having prices just naturally reach a new equilibrium, and b.) a monetary authority with the power to add to the money stock, which has, in every case, in every country, turned out to be a catastrophe.
Posted by: DMXRoid at April 13, 2011 06:18 AM (vd872)
I agree with both points. The endless battle of greed and fear.
Posted by: toby928™: stating the obvious, again at April 13, 2011 06:18 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: polynikes at April 13, 2011 06:24 AM (1URKd)
Now, that obviously applies to the inflationary scenario as well, as the cost of one widget is still one widget (in the end evaluation), but deflation is more likely to keep up with the changes in the size of the economy naturally than inflation is. While it's possible to get inflation by someone finding a lot of new gold and adding it to the economy, that relies on new gold finds, while deflation can occur without any new outside factors. You don't need a central authority for deflation to work its magic, you kind of do if you want the same effect via inflation.
Posted by: DMXRoid at April 13, 2011 06:25 AM (vd872)
Milton Freidman is FOS. Read the Forgottan Man and any other description by reputable people.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 06:27 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 13, 2011 10:05 AM (LH6ir)
Right. This is a complicated thing to manage because there are so many factors. Not only the economic growth or contraction, but also the simple destruction of money paper (too many times through the wash, or whatever) and more importantly, the public demand for net savings. If the public saves and no new money is injected, that will create money-supply driven deflation. As dollars become more scarce and valuable, dollar hoarding increases in a viscious cycle.
We can not achieve zero inflation/deflation. It's far, far to complex. The best we can do is arrange to have a moderate amount of inflation and call it a day. I think that we can do more to stabilize things, but in the end we'll never really have control.
Deflation is a serious problem for borrowers, because they lump the cost of deflation on top of the cost of interest. A lender can cover inflation by selecting a safe rate of interest. A borrower has no such defense. Thus, allowing deflation can be a serious impediment to borrowing. Given that almost every enterprise of significant size requires borrowing to get started, and even to function at all, this is a serious issue. Inflation, kept to a reasonable level, is best.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 13, 2011 06:28 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: andycanuck at April 13, 2011 10:07 AM (Y1DZt)
Being hetero, you don't find me at the pole dancers events.....it's you boyeeez that like that stuff. However, I do see some of the Swipee's in court paying their fines some times.....cost of doing business for them.
Posted by: rightzilla at April 13, 2011 06:38 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: polynikes at April 13, 2011 06:40 AM (1URKd)
In the case above they are the enforcers of local businessmen.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 10:07 AM (M9Ie6)
I know how you feel about judges, Vic, but legal precedent settles law unless it is later overturned. In the example I used the guy didn't litigate over it; it wasn't settled in favor of the local businessman.I was referring to other cases in other parts of the country. IIRC there were a few of them and in all cases the judges ruled the businesses could demand non-cash payment.
It may be unconstitutional, but you'll sit your ass in jail, pay a fortune in lawyers fees and probably lose in the end if you want to get into a huff over it.
Finally, there are two terms involved here: de jure and de facto. Like it or not, de facto is how the world works.
Posted by: Ed Anger at April 13, 2011 06:41 AM (7+pP9)
I see your point.
But this is the kicker for your argument. I can't disagree (much).
"You don't need a central authority for deflation to work its magic, you kind of do if you want the same effect via inflation."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 13, 2011 06:42 AM (LH6ir)
non-intervention position? Really? that's not what he said. (Video is at the link. ) Moreover there is now statistical evidence, (see UCLA Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian research, 2004 - FDR prolonged Great Depression) that it WAS gov intervention that de facto created Great Depression.
Posted by: Son of Liberty at April 13, 2011 06:42 AM (gtZwa)
Posted by: toby928™: stating the obvious, again at April 13, 2011 06:48 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: polynikes at April 13, 2011 06:49 AM (1URKd)
Posted by: Son of Liberty at April 13, 2011 06:58 AM (gtZwa)
Well, the business cycle has a huge amount to do with recessions
I will lay you odd of dollars to donuts that if you go back and look at past slumps in buisness cycles you will find government intervention poking its ugly head in them to cause them.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 10:10 AM (M9Ie6)
There were panics (that's what they used to call recessions) in America as far back as 1792. The First Bank of the United States wasn't even formed until 1791 and it was only responsible for 20% of the money supply.The business cycle is a real phenomenon, not just some government created bogeyman.
Posted by: Ed Anger at April 13, 2011 07:00 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: polynikes at April 13, 2011 07:13 AM (1URKd)
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 10:10 AM (M9Ie6)
True. And one thing we need to fear is that every time the government tried austerity/budget control, a recession followed soon after. Shocking the economy by draining away a significant portion of consumption quickly has negative effects. We would do well when considering our own party's policy toward dealing with the deficit.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 13, 2011 07:13 AM (xUM1Q)
Yes, and central banking is not the only way the government has in interfering in the buisness cycle. I still say if you go back and look at those early "panics" you will find the slimy hand of government in there somewhere.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 07:27 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Monty at April 13, 2011 07:32 AM (4Pleu)
The tulip craze and the dot com bubble are buisness cycles but they rarely cause what I would call a financial panic or a recession with large increases in unemployment, other than the effected industry.
Note that I would not call the housing bubble as one of those because the entire issue from birth to death was caused by the government.
Posted by: Vic at April 13, 2011 07:37 AM (M9Ie6)
For the real life instance consider Ben B.'s current quant. easing. Here you have a prime example of the governmental official distorting destroying the markets and the economy he is supposed to protect. (not mentioning the fact that he under Congressional Oath claimed he would not do this very thing).
More on the subject was written by Thomas J. in Opinion against the Constitutionality of a National Bank.
Posted by: Son of Liberty at April 13, 2011 08:07 AM (gtZwa)
Government intervention rarely helps, and often causes great harm, but it is not necessary to the process.
Posted by: Monty at April 13, 2011 11:32 AM (4Pleu)
Maybe you should ease into the differences between the Keynesian, Austrian and Chicago schools of economics after several more elementary level classes.I am a believer in the Chicago's School Real Business Cycle. I believe the recent housing bubble is an excellent example of an exogenous change in the economic environment because it was created by the government -- which I consider an outside factor of the economy.
Posted by: Ed Anger at April 13, 2011 08:11 AM (7+pP9)
I was dissapointed to see there were no bricks in Part 2.
The town I grew up in recently demolished the old high school That my wife and I went to. I subsequently found some old decorative bricks from the demo on Craig's list. Needless to say, I have big plans for these.
Posted by: Hamilton Burger at April 13, 2011 08:27 AM (Vy55J)
Posted by: California Tower at April 13, 2011 08:37 AM (QF8uk)
Late to the thread, but speaking as an Econ major who gradusted many years ago, this is a really nice job, Monty.
Looking forward to updates/expanson of this course/primer, whatever you are calling it.
Posted by: RM at April 13, 2011 10:08 AM (TRsME)
but panics and crashes are features of every economy
Kratos will love this but it's inherent to the math of non-continous, non-uniform action-reaction.
http:// www.traffic- simulation.de/
This traffic simulator is a neat little way to see chaos jump out and choke traffic. In any reasonably busy market the same differences in rate and degree of action-reaction will inevitably stack into sharp rise & falls. Then human nature takes over & boom
Posted by: Dave at April 13, 2011 10:20 AM (Se6fN)
Posted by: hare at April 13, 2011 08:26 PM (UTbqL)
Gold and silver are elements, and thus eternal for all intents and purposes; they don't rot, degrade, evaporate, or waste away.
Actually, this is not true.
While the elemental gold is eternal for all intents and purposes, that which is used for coinage or jewelry or other purposes does in rot, degrade, or waste away.
Silver tarnishes, becoming unsightly, and requiring special treatment to restore, which bit by bit wears away the metal, ultimately destroying the object.
Gold is so soft that simply carrying around a 24k gold object in your coin purse or wearing it against your skin wears it away. While most gold currency was specifically not pure for that very reason, it still degraded over time and coins had to be periodically collected and recast because of that.
What is also overlooked is that because gold and silver (and copper and other monetary metals) are also commodities with other uses, and that they are commodities with a volatile supply, is that they are subject to their own supply and demand revaluations above and beyond the subjective revaluations of the goods and services they are used to exchange for. If someone wants a new set of gold tableware, if someone melts down an old set of gold tableware for coinage, if a mine plays out, if a mother lode is discovered, if someone invents a new device that requires gold-plated conductors, all of these affect the immediate local supply of gold, producing the spot inflation of the California Gold Rush, and often impact the long term supply of gold, producing the inflation in the Hapsburg Empire when the Americas were discovered.
Posted by: Sam at April 13, 2011 08:40 PM (V9Tsq)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2444 seconds, 205 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at April 13, 2011 05:12 AM (YVZlY)