From my understanding, since Nixon detached the dollar from gold, dollar is now a fiat currency. What does this mean in Marxist terms?
Other urls found in this thread:
Fiat sounds like a car for gay Italians
gold standard is a meme for people who don't understand economics
Have you read any Marx?
fiat money is protestant
hard currency is catholic
That it's now attached to oil.
Fiat means it's not backed by gold lmao did you think it was a political term? But it's a common misconception that the dollar is backed by nothing. You must pay in US dollars to hold US land or do business with a US citizen because they must pay their taxes in US dollars (if it's a transaction but enough that someone's going to bother to audit it)
How do you back this statement?
It has value because the government says it does and they have ar-47 assault clipazine baby killer weapons platforms.
I asked for Marxist terms, not basic understanding.
That's all states ever. This statement doesn't provide anything useful.
what people don’t realize is that money isn’t a commodity, but a check or IOU. when the bank issues a certain amount of dollars, that’s basically the bank saying “Your are entitled to this amount of commodity from us”. Gold backing was the initial way of promising a trader a commodity so that the dollar would be accepted in trade, but this became a problem since Gold is such a limited commodity and has no inherent use-value. The way it’s backed now is similar, just a bit more complicated, where the bank issues a loan to the borrower and that’s recorded as a liability. The ability for commodity producers to return on an investment must be assured to some degree by the bank to maintain a good rating, and for their money consequentially to be trustworthy for exchange-value.
They don't call it "petrodollar" for nothing, user. Money doesn't have value by itself. The value doesn't come out of a vacuum.
I don't disagree on that money doesn't have considerable value, however just because the term petrodollar is used, just indicates how the US economy is dependent and controls oil. It's not some deep analysis on US economy.
I'd actually argue that gold does indeed have a use-value, as it is a mass produced commodity that is often exchanged.
My theory is that gold is still the universal equivalent, however the form of money has changed in this way:
Before the detachment you could say
a ounces gold = b dollars
where a and b are constants, meaning that a dollar "inherited" the use value of gold as a standard.
After the detachment it is
a ounces gold = x dollars
where a is constant while x is variable. It still maintains the use value of gold with the main difference being that the use value of the total amount of gold is spread to the total amount of dollars. Meaning that for each dollar created, the percentage of gold use value inherited by each dollar is spread thinner.
It's not some deep analysis on US economy
It's not meant to be some deep analysis on the US economy, it was just meant to explain that the standard has changed from gold to oil. Capitalists don't even deny this. I've heard legitimate conservative discourses praising the military-industrial complex for this specific reason.
Do you have any statistics that allow us to perceive such attachment or is it an assumption you made due to the dependability of the US economy on oil prices?
maybe, but its use value is definitely not congruent to its exchange value
the two are not commensurable quantities. comparing use values and exchange values is like comparing apples and oranges.
says the guy who never had to work 20 hours a day in a mine sifting through dirt to find flakes of gold
how do you think this refutes anything I said?
+1 labor credit has been deposited in your account.
note to self: create a meme for this.
why? it's not really funny and has no coherent viewpoint
Reaction Images are images or animated gifs that are meant to portray a specific emotion in response to something that has been said. They are commonly used in discussion threads in a similar fashion to emoticons.
what emotion are your portraying? that economics that actually match the numbers are wrong?
That's not true. Read about the universal equivalent in the first tome of Capital. All exchange values are expressed in the use value of the universal equivalent.
There is always a core that goes back to pure labor and in the case of fiat money, the thing is quite simple really: taxes. The value of fiat currency is the amount of labor time that it takes to pay the state for the privilege of existing in their country.
This post does a great job at explaining this aussiemagpie.blogspot.com
Now with the ever evolving baking system things are a bit different, bu tit is not too difficult to see how this reasoning works also for interest rates.
marx looked at cases where convertibility was officially abolished in his time and concluded that even in those cases, money never really dematerialized and was still tied to movements in the equivalent commodity. Some marxists today believe gold is still relevant when it comes to money, pointing at things such as how major countries and banks still maintain massive reserves of gold that they attempt to increase, and how gold price goes up during crises in an inverse relationship to the paper money pp
Would you consider this analysis correct?
Very little. Breton Woods was fundamentally a dollar standard, not a gold standard.
Now, the move to free floating currencies rather than enshrining a fixed exchange rate system around the dollar (while still having a system where the USD is a privileged currency), that's the fascinating thing.
Fiat currency is for proles and Ferrari currency is for bougies ?
ancom is retarded