Skip to main content

Why do people still value fiat money? Part II

Image result for Isaac Newton


Yesterday, I began a discussion of the work of  Professor Guillermo Calvo, now of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, in an effort to answer the question in the headline of this blog entry, and I got so far as to introduce the word "stickiness." Let's proceed from there.

Calvo does acknowledge that fiat money contains within itself the principle of its own destruction. But ... why does its destruction take so long? Even if deliberate government buttressing of the use of its money were "completely absent," he says, this factor would slow the aforementioned destruction. 

Stockiness is simply a convenient name for the behavioral fact that suppliers of goods and services "broadcast, far and wide, their willingness to take fiat money in exchange" for what they are selling. Further, private sellers often "reaffirm their willingness to do so over extended periods of time."

The suppliers find it useful as a marketing matter to advertise this commitment, and the buyers find it useful to rely upon such commitments. The fiat money is the focal point of this utility on both sides, and that will be difficult to change. Thus, gold "may not succeed in debunking the US dollar ... unless gold becomes a unit of account and, more to the point, a substantial share of prices and wages are quoted in terms of gold."

The threat to fiat money these days arises from the cryptocurrencies, not from gold. Still, the same argument applies. There is a powerful institutional inertia implicit in the existing system.

Inertia that would even impress the fellow pictured above.


Comments

  1. If you want your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (no matter why you broke up) you gotta watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Want your ex CRAWLING back to you...?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…