this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
34 points (85.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27027 readers
855 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

My best (stupid) guess is weapons. US gov has a ton of weapons. Already sells tons of weapons. Now the prices will always remain stable. Other countries would love to know that 30 million usd would always be able to buy an f15. Other countries declaring war will increase the value of the USD, as buying weapons from us government will decrease amount of money in circulation.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'd base it off of love and compassion, and instantly watch the value sink to the negatives.

[–] Wooster@startrek.website 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But then profits would hinge upon such concepts. It might actually be brilliant long term.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

And then you ask yourself, is it possible to game the sociopath into working for humanity instead of against it?

[–] nul@programming.dev 25 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Finally, my collection of Pogs will be worth something!

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] MermaidsGarden@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] S7rauss@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 8 months ago

In pog form!

[–] tal@lemmy.today 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

If you want a non-fiat currency, you want the backing thing to:

  • Not be easily produced/obtained, and to have a fairly predictable cost of production/obtaining.

  • Be fairly-rare, so that it can be value-dense, to reduce storage and transportation costs.

  • Not degrade.

  • Be hard to counterfeit.

  • It would be nice if it were divisible.

  • Not have much by way of critical non-backing uses, so that its use here doesn't distort that.

Probably gold. It ticks pretty much all the boxes; there's a reason that it was used in the past.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The big problem for me was something Ben Bernanke said: the process of taking gold out of a hole in the ground (a mine) just to put it into a different hole in the ground (a vault) is a pretty terrible waste of resources. And you need to continue mining it in order to stave off deflation, which means you have to keep doing that forever; and eventually that's just not going to work anymore. Mining gold is only going to become more expensive as time goes on.

Not to mention, our economy is too big and moves too quickly for gold to be a moderating force to inflation anymore. The numbers are just too big and moving too fast; we need a more nimble lever, and right now interest rates are a pretty good one.

All of that to say, there's a reason every country has come off of the gold standard since the mid- to late-20th century.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

All of that to say, there's a reason every country has come off of the gold standard since the mid- to late-20th century.

Because controlled inflation is necessary for an economy to function and nothing but a fiat currency has the desired characteristics.

Gold is still the best option if you insist on having the currency backed.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure taking gold out of a hole to put it in a different hole is a waste of resources but there's kind of a driving force towards that because if the currency is actually useful then people aren't going to use it as currency and if it's easy to produce they're going to counterfeit it

Same with cryptocurrencies, they're hard to produce and functionless, so a huge waste of resources, and frankly same with (high frequency) trading of stocks, as you don't own them when the dividends are paid yet you put huge resources into them because other people want them because of their inherent value

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

But doing something just for the sake of finances...it doesn't add anything to the world. The original question was "what do you pick?" and I don't like the idea of picking an energy-intensive activity that doesn't help the world in any way.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

I mean we would use gold in electronics a lot more if it wasn't considered valuable. So it's not perfect because it actually has a wonderful use outside of being valuable.

Rather unlucky society picked gold and silver to he valuable with how useful they.

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It could actually be a benefit if it does slowly degrade. Let's support work, not hoarding.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's what inflation is and why governments target a low but positive level of inflation with monetary policies. The fact that your dollar slowly loses value pushes you to reinvest it. Very few rich people are just sitting on piles of cash.

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

If they didn't also aggressively suppress increases to minimum wage and tax recapture benefits, I might agree, but in the long run inflation does more to devalue labor than it does to mitigate hoarding.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Energy credits coming in hot.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

crypto currencies. Just to fuck with all those crypo shills.

[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 2 points 8 months ago

Seeing heads explode because of USD and StableCoins both being pegged to EACH OTHER... yeah, I can get behind that. I'll bring popcorn for you too.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 8 months ago

I mean the hack which leads to the best result would be pegging it to the Euro, Pound or Yen as a strong currency controlled by a US ally

That said, backing it with recaptured pollutants or something would be interesting as although it has no inherent value, that's no different to how it is currently and it'd be interesting to see the mechanics of how people act

[–] raldone01@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Rubber ducks. Would be sweet to know how many one can get for bills when needed.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe people. A country with lots of people should at least in theory be capable of achieving the most "stuff". You already rent people for a limited amount of time when you employ them.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 8 months ago

God, imagine a country going into irrevocable debt and having to actually export people.
Also, currency would fluctuate wildly as people immigrate/emmigrate.
Do you count tourists? Illegal immingrants? Legal, but not sovreign, citizens (or whatever the term is for someone working in a country on a visa)?
What if people fudge their measurements?
Does put a direct price on war, i guess.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 8 months ago

The US Dollar.

[–] PoliticallyIncorrect@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

No way to back any currency anymore. So I choose to be backed as is by a bunch of manmade zeros into a computer network.

[–] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago
[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So the more money you have, the more freedom you have?...

I think it already works like that.

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

No, the more freedom America has, the more value American currency has. Our currency would be backed by freedom and eagle sounds, not the other way around.

[–] Pyroglyph@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Other countries declaring war will increase the value of the USD, as buying weapons from us government will decrease amount of money in circulation.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding this, but wouldn't that decrease the value of the dollar?

If the US Gov owns less weapons (because they've been sold) but the populace has the same number of dollars, then the value of those dollars must be decreased because there are less weapons backing it.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Well to get the thing that is backing the dollar, they would have to turn in us dollars that would be taken out of circulation . So a bunch of countries at the same time would get a bunch of USD and turn them in.

[–] spittingimage@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

American cheese. Your cheese would gain value over time, because the held amount would diminish in the form of grilled cheese sandwiches!

Pretty sure that's how that works.

[–] Mickey7@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Gold. Just like it always had been. Then you would finally have balanced budgets

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Yes, because the fundamental problem of trying to shovel money at the rich was always caused by printing too much money

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Corn Oil earmarked for deep-fryers.

[–] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Looney Tunes box office figures

[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 0 points 8 months ago
[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip -2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Greed. The US dollar would catapult to the sky. Capitalism is the economic system based on greed. It has a built-in supply.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That is a terrible choice. You want to back currency with something scarce. I propose backing it with goodwill towards the US.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 months ago

Currency needs to be backed by something other countries would want and actually hold. If nobody is holding a supply of it "backed" it would be pushing the currency value down.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

On a more serious note, it should be something no single country has a majority of control over, and it shouldn't be a limited resource, like gold which was previously used.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Trees? There I fixed global warming.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

If every dollar printed meant the US planted a tree, then anytime a tree is cut down (even on private land) you have to turn in a dollar to be taken out of circulation, it technically would work.