BRICS gold-backed currency and the many issues that it needs to overcome. The main concern is, who do you trust to hold the gold?
(www.youtube.com)
🗣️ DISCUSSION 💬
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
This is very confusing of a response.
I have no idea why you say this, unless I just don't understand your response (it is confusing). In general, this is not something that I do, because I don't actually care about being "correct" (or at least I care less than most people). I'm an investigator. I dig deep. Putting aside my preconceptions or desires is a fundamental part of my investigations. That doesn't mean it's impossible for me to get the bit in my teeth, but you have not supported the assertion that I am doing that here in your response.
Why?
"Issued from authority" yes, "used" is not quite the right word, but close enough. We'll call that "agreed."
Agreed.
Agreed on all counts. The problem is, nothing that I said disagrees with these statements. Instead, you completely skipped addressing everything that I actually said (which is why it was confusing).
Because i summed up what you said three to four times in a row with my question, because thats what I got from it. It started sounding like a no true scottsman traffic circle.
From my perspective this has nothing to do with what happened. You were saying that a fiat currency was the right way to do things and that barter was not. You also stated that you could have a free market without barter. I presented an argument against those assertions.
I suggest you didn't actually read it if that's what you got from it. At the least you are making an accusation without showing the evidence to support it.
I said, explicitly, that barter wasnt better, but i made no case for fiat or commodity backed currency outside of use of them as a tool for comparison. I never said that fiat was "the right way to do things" I was pointing out inconsistencies and flaws in your arguments about barter being better and/or the only way a free market can exist. Then at one time you said that fiat and commodity based currencies are the same and then you immediately agreed with my delineation of them.
I cannot hope to save you from confusion if you are the only one in the whirlwind.
When people say "fiat" they usually mean "no intrinsic value." I took that to be what you meant, because in the context of your statement, you put fiat and commodity currency together as performing an identical function. In other words, in YOUR CONTEXT, you suggested that a "commodity currency" could be used as an intermediary for barter in an exclusive sense, since you grouped it with "fiat." I thus elaborated and stated explicitly that if a "commodity currency" is demanded, it is identical to both the common interpretation, and the actual definition of "fiat." I further elaborated that if it is NOT demanded, it fits perfectly into a barter system.
Context is king. Taking things out of context, intentionally or otherwise, can make for some very confusing conversations. I suggest the context was clear on my part. Perhaps you were looking for issues that weren't there?
This by itself is a part of my argument. You have not addressed the argument I put forth, rather, you called it a "no true scotsman" argument without actually showing how I misrepresented your counterexamples. From my perspective, I addressed it directly.
You CAN'T have a free market unless the decisions on what is traded in a transaction is free (the definition of barter). That "free decision" includes what to use as a medium of exchange (if anything) in each and every trade. That is the crux of my argument. Please address it directly.