Money. Do you know what they are? Many people think so, but try to ask them on the street. You may be surprised by the answers…
I don't even know where I fell for this link anymore, but it was probably on Twitter. Sme.sk writes: Swedes discuss a total ban on cash
Well, how about that? That this is another in a series of socan nonsense must be clear to everyone, so I don't want to talk about it. I'd rather tell you what money is and what it's not. Because, as you can see, big central bankers don't know.
Money is not the same as banknotes! Not the same as coins.
A word money means anything that pays. When you once paid with a canvas (Can't think of anything? Canvas => pay?), The canvas was money. When you paid in gold, it was gold money. When monkeys (and some people) pay for sex, sex is money. And when prisoners had nothing more suitable for concentration camps than cigarettes, cigarettes quickly became money and were too valuable to smoke.
Conversely, in hyperinflationary economies, where the value of banknotes changes from hour to hour, people stop paying with banknotes and thus the banknotes cease to be money. It is documented that in Germany in the XNUMXs, banknotes drowned because it was cheaper than for them buy wood. So the banknotes were not money, but fuel. Your magic!
It was a mysterious development of Western society that paper became money.
It used to be paid as if by banknotes, but they represented them gold. Traders have found that pulling gold in their pockets is inconvenient. That's why they went to the guy on the bench (it .: booth) to whom they gave this gold deposited and issued paper to them (IOU), which stated that after its submission, this guy would issue such and such a volume of gold. According to the bench, the guy started to be called a bank and the debt subscriptions started to be called banknotes.
The trade continued to be cheerful, because instead of 20 g of gold, traders paid with a banknote, which was said to be a guy in Genoa who would give them 20 g of gold for it. People lived, drank and danced… and real gold they never had to see. However - and I emphasize this at Murray Rothbard's grave! - The money in this case was gold, not banknotes. The banknotes only represented the gold that actually existed (apart from the crime of embezzlement, which the bankers began to commit).
But then politicians found out that Printing banknotes is a good businessso they forbade it. Which, of course, is socialism as a belt. Only politicians continued to print banknotes. It wasn't until one day that they thought, honey. After all, they can order people to pay with banknotes. And so it happened that legal tender became a kind pofider piece of paper uncovered by absolutely nothing, not even the work of the socialist people.
People pay with it for two reasons. First, if someone owes someone, the creditor is obliged to accept the settlement of the debt with this legal tender. And second, if someone starts printing their own bills, they are arrested.
But! Remember how often money is something other than banknotes for you. How about all sorts of coupons, meal vouchers or all kinds of currency during camp games? No one who is at least a little judicial (and understands the difference between banknotes and money) can doubt that people will find another object that would serve as money.
It could be meal vouchers, it could be cigarettes, it could be carrot or gold.
However, euroisation would most likely take place. As in In hyperinflationary economies, dollarization is taking placebecause people want to pay money that has the same value before lunch as after it. In the same way, the euro would come into force in Sweden, and the crown would clear the field. Of course, it would not be possible to keep accounts and everyone who trades legally would be harmed (like any socialist nonsense), but illegal trade would continue to flourish in exactly the same way. You would just pay in euros. (If the euro is to go bankrupt before koruna banknotes are banned in Sweden, it will be replaced by another clever currency.) And like any socialist nonsense, this must go bankrupt. It only temporarily fucks the life of the "ordinary man" for whom the Socialists consider themselves so much.
Finally, one more story to learn. Recently, the saleswoman returned 70 crowns in ten crowns. So I received 7 ten crowns and went home happily. On closer inspection, however, it turned out that one of those ten crowns is so special. On the next purchase, I used this ten-crown coin as if it hadn't frosted.
Do you think I did something obscene? And why? When someone accepts money (not banknotes!), He attributes to them a value that he reasonably believes will be attributed to the money to whom he will hand it over next. And I took a pack of similar metal plates, because I reasonably thought that someone else would also consider them just as valuable. That is, for example, they buy 70 rolls in Tesco or two baguettes for them.
I also passed on the "ten crowns". The man reasonably thought he could spend it just like the official one. And I think he can do it. Of course, it's because everyone thinks it's the official one. But here it is. Money will serve people just as well (even better), i when the state will not whisper to them what has the right price.
I must have done something illegal, but I don't think it's immoral. (This duality is often the case with socialist rules. Antitrust legislation is a shining example.)
PS: At the end of this article, I want to point out that the idea that banknotes are the same as money is so ingrained that I he himself had to fix it several times when creating this article. In the interest of readability for laymen, I also committed some economic inaccuracies, which my colleagues will perhaps forgive me…
The article was originally published on author's blog.