Oh, I’m not saying that notes are as good as gold, I’m saying they can be better. More fluid, easier to produce, cheaper to carry, care for, and verify. Just better. Of course, this is a subjective value and wasn’t referring to the world I was talking about.
The world I was talking about was one where the bank issues a product from the bank, and a counterfeiter issues a product from himself that is similar to the banks and is an attempt to piggy-back off of the banks reputation.
have you understood that those who condone sound banking , commodity banking, gold dollars, dont have anything against the use of paper notes per se ? (think: receipts)
And receipts are almost as good as currency without being as good. Still restrained to a backwards monetary system that can’t increase to prevent secondary shocks to the economy or adjust to MD.
Anything easy to manufacture can be easily copied unlike things such as gold of course. But at any rate, why is it OK for the bank to counterfeit its bank notes, but it’s not OK for Smith to do it ?
Why is it OK for the bank to inflate and it’s not OK for other people ?
Really. I need money. I just print it. It can’t get any easier…and ‘efficient’…and ‘libertarian’.
Gold is not copied. It is mined. Wood is not copied either, it is grown and harvested.
Stamped gold coins can be copied. Stamped paper can be copied.
I never said there was anything wrong with it, necessarily. So, why would a bank issue notes not backed by something that is not as easily produced and is much more valuable? I never said a bank would do this. But if one wanted to take the risk of having its currency devalued from someone else copying it, then so be it.
I never said there was anything necessarily wrong with it. But a bank that did this would probably not stay in business long.