Serious question.

I know little about this. The gold standard, the Nixon administration iirc, MMT-- I don't know why but I don't know how to put this question in context.

PD, jon, Quirt, others whom I know have experience, and everyone else, I'd appreciate hearing your comments.

We're not far off from moving to all digital currency if the "conspiracy theorists" are right.

Fiat currencies are neutral in the moral sense. The usual definition says “fiat” currency means one not tethered to a physical commodity. But ultimately whether something is “currency” depends on the public’s faith — if not in the issuing authority then in the chosen commodity. In that sense every currency is “fiat” by faith.

Whether fiat currency is good in the practical sense depends on context — good for what? Good for whom? Under what conditions?

Whether the currency is “digital” has nothing to do with whether it is “fiat.” One can digitize the Dollar regardless of whether it is “fiat” or backed by gold.

Thanks, Ax.

It's interesting you use the word faith.

I think this is the aspect of currency, the central one, in fact, I can't help thinking of as strange.

Polynesians used shells as currency.

Maybe it shouldn't but linking representations of value with faith seems kind of arbitrary to me.

I understand many of the social sciences in either explicit or intuitive ways, first on my list being political science followed closely by history, followed by sociology, etc., but have little to no real aptitude for economics.

I don't know why.

Thanks, again.



Polynesians

Of course it's faith. Otherwise why would people surrender useful goods for useless pieces of paper?