Chapter I Paragraph 3
What 'wealth? What are the currency and the money? I realize that talking to economists: as often happens to those who study a subject in depth, they take for granted some of the concepts that are not at all; them the same concepts we take for granted, but we at least have the excuse of not understanding anything economy. Without this small ears are stretched to the point. The money was invented to facilitate trade, and if I produce chairs, you produce cars, and he produces pears and exchange the goods are not 'easy, then we need of a united' which divide the common good that produce (money) to be able to exchange the goods that we produced. Going back through the history of money there are many things that should be clarified, but that 's a topic that will address' below. Suffice it to say that for a long period, the coins were made of gold or silver, each coin was written about how much he weighed, and since 'these metals have an intrinsic value of the currency drew its legitimacy' of the quantity 'of metal that was present in the same currency. Who takes responsibility 'of conirare money was the "gentleman" who, took the metal on the bottom, put it in the molds he made sure it weighed the tot was written above and then distributing it. To repay the costs, the 'lord', actually 'did not write the true weight on the coins, but a little' more 'so' he kept a bit 'of gold. Of course the "ladies" was held enough to repay the costs of liability 'and something more'. The difference between the nominal value of the piece of metal and its intrinsic value given by the weight (less than the nominal one) was called "seigniorage." In a future post I will talk about 'where it takes its legitimacy' money flowing now and if it still exists seigniorage. Now I want to highlight some inconsistencies in the monetary system in general. If the value and 'given by the production of goods, gold and' just a way to represent the value of them, 'cause who found the gold became rich and who worked the land was always poor? Says, but gold has intrinsic value, in Ralt 'is not true,' cause especially in antiquity 'gold was used mainly to make jewelry and jewelry, had no utlita' of bronze or iron, while less than that of pears and wheat. So the intrinsic value of gold was not but it was a conventional value, then we attach a value, not according to the need for gold we have, but according to a choice shared by the people. In China, at the time of Marco Polo was not gold coins, but they were already printed on mulberry leaves, so 'while the cities' Italian maritime war were made to rub someone the gold and silver had already' found a solution to the problem. But if the value of the goods have, as never to produce the goods we need to ask to borrow the money? If the primitive thought they could not produce for lack of money (which does not exist), how would you survive? Why 'Italy must apply for the money borrowed to produce wealth, when in fact' the production of wealth and 'value itself?
goods, value, work
http://www.filosofia.unina.it/tortora/sdf/Sesto/VI.10.html Money
http://it.geocities.com/pietro_valocchi/numismatica/
information on various currency
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneta
Comics explanation of the functioning of seigniorage today
http://www .signoraggio.com/isola/bankenstein_1di9.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment