March 19
Comments migrated from WordPress:
MirrorField <mirrorfield@gmail.com> on 2016-06-09 12:41:15 wrote:
Which is exactly why fiat money, despite it’s many advantages (mostly to economists, bankers and politicians), can never be fully trustable. It’s called counterparty risk and Imperial Board of Money and Values should be especially aware that there are things that, as R.A. Heinlein once put it, you cannot trust even yourself with. Still, it is an imperfect universe.
Also, I personally suspect that given the …shall we say robust attitudes of IBMV personnel, as noted elsewhere, would mean that it would take truly extreme circumstances to trigger the use of this weapon. Minor naughtiness like terrorism, slavers, rogue polities or even major war would not suffice. We’d be talking about matters that more probably fall into Fifth Directorate territory.
Specialist290 <specialist290@hughes.net> on 2016-06-09 14:55:24 wrote:
And to expand on this: Given that fiat currency essentially creates an implicit contract between the issuer and the bearer that the former will always back it as a measure of exchange value, and taking into account how seriously the Empire and its government takes contract integrity, I’d imagine that there would still be situations where its use would be nigh-unthinkable in most circumstances that the Imperials could get away with it from a purely economic standpoint.
Alistair Young <athanasius.skytower@arkane-systems.net> on 2016-06-10 01:36:46 wrote:
While the IBMV have never formally requested a legal opinion on this point from the Curia, the informal one would point out that what the Imperial Charter actually says is “The Empire shall establish a single unit of exchange to use in commerce between the nations of the Empire and with those beyond its borders, and this shall become the base for the coin, currency and values minted by the nations of the Empire, which shall have with it an absolute relation.”
One might extrapolate from there to say first that “in commerce” is functionally a short form of “in consideration of contracts”, and second that the legal if not ethical standing of all contracts is based on the Fundamental Contract, and conclude that while the Exchequer therefore has an ethical, moral, and legal obligation to uphold the value of its currency in general as a matter of the obligation of contract, in specific cases where currency units are being used for the purpose of violating the Fundamental Contract (rather than mere statute or case law), such behavior constitutes a repudiatory breach of the currency-provision contract and as such they have no obligation to uphold the value of that specific chunk of currency.
I mean, they don’t, because it’s never been the case that the game is worth the candle when it comes to weighing the gain from doing so against the reputational damage it would do to the IBMV and the esteyn . But their legal grounds for doing so might be pretty solid.
Y’know, technically. If anyone with standing were to ask.
Specialist290 <specialist290@hughes.net> on 2016-06-10 12:13:47 wrote:
"...[T]the legal if not ethical standing of all contracts is based on the Fundamental Contract...
Which leads me to a question that’s a little tangential to the original post, but in one form or another has been haunting the back of my mind for a while: Would a contract where one party waives their rights under the Fundamental Contract as part of their contract obligations – and does so voluntarily, and not through fraud, duress or coercion – in lieu of the other party’s discretion be considered a valid contract? (For the moment, let’s ignore whether it would be moral to draw up such a contract in the first place and assume that the relationship is already a fait accompli .)
Or, to put it another way: Can a mentally and morally competent soph willfully choose to surrender their right to choose?
Alistair Young <athanasius.skytower@arkane-systems.net> on 2016-06-10 01:17:43 wrote:
Well, yes. It’s not the best option for running a fully general currency, the IBMV would agree. It’s just the only option.
Although where trust and the IBMV are concerned, their reputation is "not from gossip… [their] reputation is fact. Is solid.” Much like the Curia, they’ve long since earned the regard they have for being as reliable, predictable, and unchangeable as the celestial spheres - which is why they’re so very chary of anything that might break it.
Specialist290 <specialist290@hughes.net> on 2016-09-02 14:14:44 wrote:
Coming back to this post for a moment: It strikes me that, while maybe the Empire themselves wouldn’t ever do such with the esteyn for reasons of their own, the same basic capability carried over to private or semi-public complementary currencies might serve as the foundation for a demurrage mechanism.
(See also: Demurrage | Miracle in the Town of Worgl , which is what I was reading when the thought to link the article’s idea to this one hit.)
March 21
avatar:
knowlessmen
A fascinating calque from Eldrae—I assume another possible translation would be “ignoranti”?
1 reply
March 22
▶ JAPH
Not a calque-gloss in this case: various secret societies have been using the term on Earth for decades, at least, to refer to those Not In The Know. I just borrowed it from them.
