4 ms·

He did not use pure gold or silver. The coins had less gold or silver than their respective face value. By the way, there are gold and silver american coins th

by hristov 14y ago

He did not use pure gold or silver. The coins had less gold or silver than their respective face value. By the way, there are gold and silver american coins that are still legal tender. There are many different legal tender gold and silver us coins that have a woman on them and the word liberty and they are often referred to as liberty dollars. One side of his coin is especially similar to a silver coin called the peace dollar (but also often referred to as the liberty dollar).

bunderbunder 14y ago
> He did not use pure gold or silver. The coins had less gold or silver than their respective face value. Putting in an amount of gold equal to its supposed monetary value would have been a losing business proposition. He'd have been losing money every single time he traded a Liberty dollar for US dollars. If the Liberty dollar is worth exactly the amount of gold that's in it, then the only way he could even break even is if the cost of minting coins were zero. He'd essentially be turning himself into an easy way for currency speculators to avoid brokerage fees, and losing his shirt in the process. (This is assuming he weren't using gold that he had previously stockpiled when it was at a lower price.) Putting only a little precious metal in the coins is a much better business decision. Having some precious metal in there would be reassuring to members of his target demographic. Having less than the coin's stated value in there means that he had some shot at maintaining control over the market and having a viable business plan. That, and I suspect that keeping the actual value of gold at arm's length would be an absolute necessity. Just look at what the price of gold was doing over the time that Liberty dollars were being issued. A currency that's constantly strengthening against all others at a double-digit rate is not a currency on which one could base a stable economy. cf.) Dutch disease.

by hristov 14y ago

bunderbunder 14y ago

> He did not use pure gold or silver. The coins had less gold or silver than their respective face value. Putting in an amount of gold equal to its supposed monetary value would have been a losing business proposition. He'd have been losing money every single time he traded a Liberty dollar for US dollars. If the Liberty dollar is worth exactly the amount of gold that's in it, then the only way he could even break even is if the cost of minting coins were zero. He'd essentially be turning himself into an easy way for currency speculators to avoid brokerage fees, and losing his shirt in the process. (This is assuming he weren't using gold that he had previously stockpiled when it was at a lower price.) Putting only a little precious metal in the coins is a much better business decision. Having some precious metal in there would be reassuring to members of his target demographic. Having less than the coin's stated value in there means that he had some shot at maintaining control over the market and having a viable business plan. That, and I suspect that keeping the actual value of gold at arm's length would be an absolute necessity. Just look at what the price of gold was doing over the time that Liberty dollars were being issued. A currency that's constantly strengthening against all others at a double-digit rate is not a currency on which one could base a stable economy. cf.) Dutch disease.