There's a bunch of things worth replying to in this post, but I'm going to focus on this one.
On 6/16/06, Donald R. Oddy <donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <37b3929d3eru29mhjklunjfbide5on3vpf@4ax.com> Stephen Tempest writes:
> >Each coin was issued for a limited period of about two to three years
> >- the official coin stamp given to licenced moneyers would vary with
> >each issue. When new coinage was issued, people would have to return
> >their old coins to the mint where they would be melted down and
> >re-coined; normally you would be given 8 - 9 coins back for each 10
> >you handed in; in effect a 10% or 20% wealth tax. People accepted
> >this system, rather than using old coins and just weighing them,
> >because the government guaranteed the purity of the silver used in the
> >coins. (Moneyers using too much alloy and not enough silver in their
> >coins would have their hands chopped off and nailed above the door of
> >the mint).
>
> A heck of a big disincentive to save in currency then although I
> can't see many peasants having ten coins. I can see this system
> working for merchants who use coins regularly but not for those
> who are doing well to acquire a few coins. The coins may be out
> of date but would still have some value.
What else could a peasant store wealth in? Sure, it's a disincentive, but other forms of wealth were disincentivized even more.
Valuables (such as jewelry or luxury goods) were restricted by sumptuary laws.
Livestock would be a good choice, if there was enough labor on his farm to tend the extra animals. Once he's got all he and his family can care for, there's little he can do to increase the value of his farm.
Christians were not permitted to make loans, so venture capital was unavailable as an investment.
--
"Being a patriot no longer requires a musket, but it still takes balls."
-----Me
Received on Fri 16 Jun 2006 - 17:18:09 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed 18 Jul 2007 - 23:38:07 EEST