3 ms·

Ah, so what were we using before Bretton Woods? I didn't know that the silver and gold minted coins traded by Roman merchants were in fact not money, but commo

Ah, so what were we using before Bretton Woods? I didn't know that the silver and gold minted coins traded by Roman merchants were in fact not money, but commodities. There's just so much utility in carrying around sacks of metal shards.

arcticbull 5y ago
> I didn't know that the silver and gold minted coins traded by Roman merchants were in fact not money, but commodities. It was money in Roman times. Luckily we have moved on. It is no longer money, unless you're planning on trading with Marcus Aurelius. Gold was demonetized in the 30s.
- scottiebarnes 5y ago
  Oh, so only the government definition of money is whats relevant here, and only of the last ~100 years. Historical and physical contexts of money are irrelevant. Its interesting because you were even brave enough to includ "coin" in your definition. Coins are made of rare earth metal blends, like silver, copper, nickel, and gold. So metals are only money when its in a small circular token form factor, but not when its melted together into a heavier bar. Got it.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Oh scottie. > Coins are made of rare earth metal blends, like silver, copper, nickel, and gold. Those are not rare earth metals. They are metals, but not rare earth metals. Those are "any of a group of chemically similar metallic elements comprising the lanthanide series and (usually) scandium and yttrium. They are not especially rare, but they tend to occur together in nature and are difficult to separate from one another." Also, nickel isn't rare by any definition. Nickel is the fifth most abundant element on Earth. > So metals are only money when its in a small circular token form factor, but not when its melted together into a heavier bar. Got it. No, that's also wrong. "The characteristics of money are durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply, and acceptability." Gold fails the acceptability test because to be money, something must be broadly accepted as a medium of exchange. It is not accepted by anyone. Walk into a Walmart with a brick of gold and they'll tell you to get stuffed. You'll get the same response at Home Depot or if you try and email Amazon. That's why it's not money. > Oh, so only the government definition of money is whats relevant here, and only of the last ~100 years. Historical and physical contexts of money are irrelevant. They're relevant in antiquity. Not so relevant today. Like a hitching post. What matters isn't even the government definition but rather the social definition.
    - scottiebarnes 5y ago
      In prison, a prisoner may trade packs of cigarettes and ramen noodles for favours. Those "commodities" to us on the outside, become "currency" to them, a medium of exchange; money. So while it seems strange to refer to ramen noodles as money in some contexts, and especially from the outside, the economic behavioural context allows us to attribute monetary function to this commodity, and allows us to say it is being used as a money. When I'm talking about crypto/bitcoin/money, I am using a global trade and historical context, the macro concept of money outside of any single government, currency, or system. I am using money in an economic behavioural concept; something people use to trade and save with. I understand you're not willing to accept or trade with Bitcoin, which is why it is not money to you. But there are those that do accept it, and every year the numbers grow. Thus it is already money, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes de facto "money"
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Mackerel may be money in prison but we’re not in prison are we? It’s broadly accepted there which is why in the context it is money. Gold is not accepted anywhere broadly and therefore not money anywhere.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

arcticbull 5y ago

> I didn't know that the silver and gold minted coins traded by Roman merchants were in fact not money, but commodities. It was money in Roman times. Luckily we have moved on. It is no longer money, unless you're planning on trading with Marcus Aurelius. Gold was demonetized in the 30s.

scottiebarnes 5y ago
Oh, so only the government definition of money is whats relevant here, and only of the last ~100 years. Historical and physical contexts of money are irrelevant. Its interesting because you were even brave enough to includ "coin" in your definition. Coins are made of rare earth metal blends, like silver, copper, nickel, and gold. So metals are only money when its in a small circular token form factor, but not when its melted together into a heavier bar. Got it.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Oh scottie. > Coins are made of rare earth metal blends, like silver, copper, nickel, and gold. Those are not rare earth metals. They are metals, but not rare earth metals. Those are "any of a group of chemically similar metallic elements comprising the lanthanide series and (usually) scandium and yttrium. They are not especially rare, but they tend to occur together in nature and are difficult to separate from one another." Also, nickel isn't rare by any definition. Nickel is the fifth most abundant element on Earth. > So metals are only money when its in a small circular token form factor, but not when its melted together into a heavier bar. Got it. No, that's also wrong. "The characteristics of money are durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply, and acceptability." Gold fails the acceptability test because to be money, something must be broadly accepted as a medium of exchange. It is not accepted by anyone. Walk into a Walmart with a brick of gold and they'll tell you to get stuffed. You'll get the same response at Home Depot or if you try and email Amazon. That's why it's not money. > Oh, so only the government definition of money is whats relevant here, and only of the last ~100 years. Historical and physical contexts of money are irrelevant. They're relevant in antiquity. Not so relevant today. Like a hitching post. What matters isn't even the government definition but rather the social definition.
  - scottiebarnes 5y ago
    In prison, a prisoner may trade packs of cigarettes and ramen noodles for favours. Those "commodities" to us on the outside, become "currency" to them, a medium of exchange; money. So while it seems strange to refer to ramen noodles as money in some contexts, and especially from the outside, the economic behavioural context allows us to attribute monetary function to this commodity, and allows us to say it is being used as a money. When I'm talking about crypto/bitcoin/money, I am using a global trade and historical context, the macro concept of money outside of any single government, currency, or system. I am using money in an economic behavioural concept; something people use to trade and save with. I understand you're not willing to accept or trade with Bitcoin, which is why it is not money to you. But there are those that do accept it, and every year the numbers grow. Thus it is already money, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes de facto "money"
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Mackerel may be money in prison but we’re not in prison are we? It’s broadly accepted there which is why in the context it is money. Gold is not accepted anywhere broadly and therefore not money anywhere.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]