> You're arguing past the point of the topic. The composition of a receipt for gold on deposit, a gold certificate payable on demand to the bearer can vary wide

> You're arguing past the point of the topic. The composition of a receipt for gold on deposit, a gold certificate payable on demand to the bearer can vary widely. The important aspect is that the bearer is paid on demand. I guess my point was that the coins typically had intrinsic value and nominal value. The intrinsic value usually varied considerably depending on what the coin was made from. So you may end up with two coins with a nominal value of, say, 10 but their intrinsic value varies considerably. People accept the coin at the nominal value because the nominal value is greater than the intrinsic value. They accept the coin at the nominal value because the issuer of it stands behind it. It can be remedied for goods and services, or it is redeemed by paying taxes to the government. > There's also the phenomenon of coin clipping and shaving. Citing examples of monetary debasement doesn't prove that gold or coins have no intrinsic value. To the contrary, if there was no intrinsic value there would be no need to debase them. Just because someone has 'gotten away with it' doesn't mean it is a valid policy. These events illustrate economic mismanagement. Oh... I'm not saying coins don't have any intrinsic value - that would be silly. Of course they have intrinsic value. I'm sure if you read my post again then you'll see that's not what I was getting at. Certainly, if the price of precious metal continues to rise then people would clip the coins. If the price of precious metal rises above the nominal value of the coin then people would just take the coins out of circulation entirely because the metal is more valuable than the value the coin was issued at. But I don't think any of this really matters that much. National currencies were debased in the past not because the metal content of the coins diminished but because the solvency of the issuer was brought into question. > Nor do I accept your premise that price deflation is exclusively harmful. Technological advances, increases in productivity are deflationary. We all benefit from greater productivity. Consumers enjoy lower prices. Artificially suppressing deflation robs consumers of the benefits of increased productivity. Yes, deflation as a result of technical improvements is clearly a good thing. I was more talking in terms of monetary policy. Eg. linking money supply to a fixed stock of gold, for example, is not a good idea. > Putting all of that to the side, the argument that deflation must be managed (by a central bank) is an argument for price fixing. This discards the entire premise of decentralized price discovery, in lieu of omnipotent technocracy. I agree with you. Central banks distort markets, and that's kind of what they are supposed to do in the name of "stability". They can set any interest rate they like. They can print as much money as they like. They can redeem as much money as they like. Clearly the whole point is to manipulate the market of money! Do I think it's a good thing? No. I'd much prefer a world with no central banks! Cheers