Re:Fiat vs. Bitcoin
by paulgb on Sunday October 29, 2017 @10:44AM
(#15579489)
> Sure, if you entirely change the definition of fiat currency.
It's worth noting that the definition of "fiat" in economics depends on which economist you ask. From Famous Myths of "Fiat Money", Dror Goldberg (2005):
> Monetary economics has an ideal construct of its own. It is what economists call "fiat money." This is an object that has no intrinsic value and is not convertible into anything. An implicit assumption in the definition is that no one is forced to use such money and that the money has no other legal status such as legal tender. Acceptance of such money is entirely discretionary and based exclusively on the expectation that others would accept it too, even though no one else is forced to accept it (Wallace 1980).
> Interestingly, monetary economists do not claim that their "fiat money" concept is fictional. On the contrary, they identify it with the modem money we use in reality. Legal scholars and laypersons call the money we actually use by the same name since "fiat" refers to its status as legal tender. Monetary economists usually ignore this status.
I personally prefer the definition you use, because it fits nicely with the non-monetary definition of "fiat", but it seems arguments over what constitutes fiat often devolve into arguments of semantics given the term's ambiguous history.
It's worth noting that the definition of "fiat" in economics depends on which economist you ask. From Famous Myths of "Fiat Money", Dror Goldberg (2005):
> Monetary economics has an ideal construct of its own. It is what economists call "fiat money." This is an object that has no intrinsic value and is not convertible into anything. An implicit assumption in the definition is that no one is forced to use such money and that the money has no other legal status such as legal tender. Acceptance of such money is entirely discretionary and based exclusively on the expectation that others would accept it too, even though no one else is forced to accept it (Wallace 1980).
> Interestingly, monetary economists do not claim that their "fiat money" concept is fictional. On the contrary, they identify it with the modem money we use in reality. Legal scholars and laypersons call the money we actually use by the same name since "fiat" refers to its status as legal tender. Monetary economists usually ignore this status.
I personally prefer the definition you use, because it fits nicely with the non-monetary definition of "fiat", but it seems arguments over what constitutes fiat often devolve into arguments of semantics given the term's ambiguous history.