Royal Mint

[Retech]

One word: Coinchest.

Basically, it is made out of a gold bar and a steel bar (or other higher-end materials), and can hold an infinite number of coins. For the sake of time, there would be two options. You could search the initials of the coin and find how many you have, or you could view all. I see possible implementation issues, but it could work. It would behave like a strongbox in nature, and would be an object.

[jorb]

Grain rots within a few months, comes in vastly varying qualities and is generally pretty useless as a serious means of exchange. Value is a subjective estimate of a good -- one which can never reduced to any one single dimension of the good in question, such as its utility. The value of a particular piece of bread might very well be sentimental, religious or something else entirely. Claiming that bread derives its value from its utility is a half-truth at best.

The problem with a fiat currency is that it is backed by absolutely nothing. The paper bills you carry in your pocket represent nothing except themselves, and are, qua means of exchange, valued on account of their relative scarcity alone. (Notice that I do not try to deny that the above made point applies to money as well. Any particular object can be valued for many reasons -- many coins have a value qua antiquities, for example -- but the most common reason why people want more money is that it is hard to come by, quite simply.). Gold is something more than a colorful piece of paper. Gold is a rare precious metal that you cannot simply print more of as you see fit. The supply of gold is determined by natural factors, and not by government decree.

You claim that fiat currencies are "backed by the national economy as a whole", but how on god's green earth do you propose that that backing works? How would that backing even be expressed? As has been stated the government does not guarantee you any particular slice of the "national economy" (as if that was the government's to give away in the first place) in exchange for any of its notes. The notes are, by the very definition of a fiat currency, not backed by *anything*. They are what they are, nothing more, nothing less. A colorful piece of paper with an entirely arbitrary number printed on them. They cannot be exchanged at a bank for *anything*. A gold standard note can always be exchanged for a very specific amount of gold.

Perhaps what you actually mean is that the government tries to maintain price stability? But how does it do that, then? By trying to make sure that certain more or less arbitrary collections of goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPI) always remain at the same constant *numerical price* as expressed in fiat money! That's not stability!

Lets assume that I invent a method that allows me to sell bread at half its current price. The effect that this wonderful invention of mine would have on the national bank is to make it -- after the values have been crunched through the banks various more or less arbitrary indices -- print more money, to ensure that the price of bread remain "stable". This has -- among other things -- the extremely negative effect of masking and obfuscating price drops that occur through natural technological advances. Of course, this is highly illusory -- the price of bread has still dropped -- the only difference is that the government now has stolen a little bit of value from every holder of its currency, all with the expressed aim of guaranteeing that the *number* printed on the loaf of bread does not change! The effect that any sane consumer would *really* like to see is of course that the price of bread drops, quite simply, as that is the best expression of the underlying productive factors of the economy. This also befuddles completely the completely unimaginable amount of other factors involved in a price setting mechanism. Bread might not be as valued today as it was yesterday -- on account, for example, of salad becoming more fashionable -- so bread always having the same numerical price is a pointless goal in any event. The relationship of bread to the rest of the market is not the same from day to day.

Nothing in life is stable, and the object of a currency cannot be to remain static in relation to something else, as there is no constant in relation to which it could remain stable. What I want from a currency -- a value storage -- is that it should not lose value simply by me having it in my pocket. If anything I would like it to gain value. I would personally prefer it if I could have my value stored in a metal -- something that no one can magically create more of -- rather than in a note that the government openly and proudly boasts that it is printing more of. Do you see that that printing reduces the value of all my money? Do you see that the value that disappears from my money goes directly into the government's pockets, as they are the first to put the new "money" into circulation?

Fiat money loses value over time, as the government prints more of it. This runs completely contrary to one of the qualities that are always cited when talking about qualities sought from a currency, namely value preservation over time. Gold has historically proven itself as an extremely useful -- the most useful, in fact -- preserver of value, yet we do not use it as such. Why? Because the government wants to control your wallet, because inflation is an extremely efficient and stealthy means of taxation.

You claim that the government surely does not abuse this power, and apart from this being naive, it is also wrong. The government -- openly and admittedly so -- abuses that power to the tune of several percent each year. In Sweden, the 50-öring (half a krona) is now being removed from circulation, simply because the government over the last thirty years, since the collapse of the bretton woods system, has debased the currency so much that the coin is now essentially worthless compared to other coins in circulation. Before that the 50-öring had been in circulation for at least a couple of hundred years, why this sudden change in the weather? The Maria Theresia Thaler -- in further contrast -- was used uninterruptedly for 250 years, simply because it was struck from pure silver, and thus not capable of losing value simply because some bureaucrat or other decided that it should. What coin would you rather have had in your pocket, a Maria Theresia Thaler or a Swedish 50-öring from 1985? (They were obviously never of comparable denominations, but I trust that you see my point here).

Honestly now, what would you prefer? A thousand dollars in cash, or a thousand dollars in gold doubloons? I think that the answer is pretty given. One of those must be spent immediately or lose 2-4-6-8-10% of its value every year, the other you can sit on for thousands of years and it'll still be worth a shitton.

So why don't I use gold? Because the government -- at gunpoint -- maintains a monopoly on the issuing of currency. If that was not the case -- if banking was a free market -- I don't think anyone would be using government money, and the government seems to agree with me on that estimate (Why else have the laws). There are no constitutional or parliamentary checks on the central bank. In fact, most western countries make an expressed point of having an "independent" central bank. Unchecked power is always abused. Furthermore government power should never be accepted by default, it must always be motivated. Do you really think that I should be forbidden from issuing a currency of my own? If so, why? Why must this be a government monopoly to begin with? If it wasn't, I would have very little quarrel with the government issuing monopoly currency, as no one would be stupid enough to use it.

In Haven metal -- among other things -- lacks several of the comparative qualities that it has IRL which would make it more meaningful as a value storage. Food, for example, decays in real life.

[Potjeh]

I'd say that a country's granary is a much better measure of it's real wealth than it's treasury. The food supply determines how large a population the country can support. Rate of production of real wealth is proportionate to the size of workforce, which is proportionate to the size of population. Effectiveness of food production also determines how many craftsmen, artists, philosophers, doctors and most importantly soldiers the country can support. With good enough motivation, you can have an army that fights without pay, but you can't have an army that fights without food. Sure, you could use gold to hire mercenaries, but if you don't have an army of your own they may find it easier to just take all your gold rather than earn some of it (I'm sure there's plenty of examples of condottieri doing this in Renaissance Italy). You can buy food for gold in peacetime, but making yourself reliant on food imports makes you susceptible to blockades and sieges, and someone will soon capitalize on that susceptibility. Even if it doesn't happen, you're at the mercy of your trade partners, who can blackmail you into anything with threats of embargo.

Of course, this all refers to a pre-industrial world. In a modern world, the things are quite similar, but food has been mostly replaced with energy, primarily oil. Most countries today try to be energy independent as much as they can. For an example of what happens when they're not, see the gas crisis in Europe. All the gold bars in Germany couldn't heat the apartments when the valves got shut.

As for inflation, it's a *good* thing if it's moderate. People need incentive to spend or invest their money, because taking capital out of circulation is a cardinal sin against the national economy, and hurts everyone who participates in it. Having stockpiled money gain value over time is a horrible idea, because it would encourage people to put it in their socks, which would further raise money's value and start a vicious circle that kills liquidity in the national economy. Money kept in banks is different, because banks invest that money via loans, which help growth of total wealth by enabling people to start new businesses. And yeah, it's stealth taxes, so what? Infrastructure, defence, public services, they all take money. If the government didn't get money through this stealth tax, it'd just raise regular taxes. Higher regular taxes are worse for business than moderate inflation.

The bottomline is that modern economy is a lot more efficient than the medieval economy, precisely because of fiat money. The cases where overprinting of money caused spread of poverty are notable exceptions, and they mostly have other reasons behind them. Weimar Republic, for example, did have a crazy rate of inflation and it's people were driven into poverty. But the real cause of this poverty wasn't printing of money, it was the oppressive Versailles treaty. When you have to give a significant portion of your production to other countries, your people will be poorer. There's simply less goods to go around, no matter if you use gold standard or fiat money.

[Avu]

In Haven metal -- among other things -- lacks several of the comparative qualities that it has IRL which would make it more meaningful as a value storage. Food, for example, decays in real life.

Except nobody gives a crap about stockpiling wealth or even food for that matter. There is nothing to gain by it. If I save a lot of shit I still won't be able to buy vast amounts of land or buildings or employ a workforce or fuck even buy me that epic yacht I always wanted. Everything of value will be made by my hand in the end or exchanged for similar valued goods. That's why we have a barter economy and not money. The food I gain I don't need to stockpile I can just eat it and gain stats that while they are not that useful past a certain point at least gives me a reason to bother with anything really.

Also metal as value storage fails again simply by the fact that there are so many fucking mines in the world and everyone can just mine some more if they need it. Rarity is not one of metals attributes and rarity is necessary for currency. Pearls in my opinion are the only items rare enough to be used as wealth storage and while you could go crazy on boiling mussels that would still not give you a significant amount of pearls and it would deprive you of time better invested in more efficient producers of wealth.

[Potjeh]

Like I said before, the main problem is that there aren't any decent metal sinks. Food gives you stats, so you'll gladly eat it, but the only sink for metal is repairs, and everyone hates repairs. I've never used a metal plough and I never will, and I keep my large chests indoors when they're not in use, so I don't think I've ever actually used metal to repair something.

I reckon bronzer statues as authority objects would be a good sink, we're always expanding our village claim. Can't think of anything else that would transmute low-q metal into an in-game advantage on a repeatable basis, though.

[jorb]

We are devving now, but boy do you have a wall of text coming your way, sonny.

[Winterbrass]

There are two main problems with a gold-based currency. One, when manufacturing raw elements becomes possible through the use of nanotechnology (take three protons out of lead and you have what alchemists were searching for a few hundred years ago), having gold backing is suddenly no better than fiat currency as the supply of gold is now theoretically infinite. Two, when gold becomes undesirable (unused in jewellry or electronics due to finding a 'better' material) or unnecessary (see first point), it will lose all of its value.

At either of these points, I'd rather take my fiat currency, thanks.

[DatOneGuy]

Gold already has very limited uses...

Jewelry = One time buy, perhaps you'll buy 'better' when it's possible to make better
Symbel = Continuous purchase, but if you're buying it the smart way it'll last you near forever.

Let's take the current way most people would do things, they would typically want...
Thanes(4) - Hunting with Melee
Occult(4) - Hunting with Marksmanship
Ring of Brodgar (4) - LP
Merchant's Rings(2) - For the hell of it

So 'once' every character would need (if they're extremely balanced and want to do `everything`) 14 gold nuggets...
That's not much at all.

Then they'd need 1 gold plate, 1 gold bell which is another what 8 and 7 respectively. A plate can last you over a month of `serious` eating, not sure on a bell would depend on the quality of the block of wood so yeah...


So over the course of a lifetime one need only seriously acquire 3 gold bars, after that they might need 1~2 bars every month or so (big whoop), considering the low player base, gold can lose value rather quickly, sadly.

[Onionfighter]

There are two main problems with a gold-based currency. One, when manufacturing raw elements becomes possible through the use of nanotechnology (take three protons out of lead and you have what alchemists were searching for a few hundred years ago), having gold backing is suddenly no better than fiat currency as the supply of gold is now theoretically infinite. Two, when gold becomes undesirable (unused in jewellry or electronics due to finding a 'better' material) or unnecessary (see first point), it will lose all of its value.

At either of these points, I'd rather take my fiat currency, thanks.

Nanotechnology uses chemical processes. Transmutation is a nuclear process. You don't know what you are talking about.

Also, being able to manufacture something that occurs in nature means nothing when manufacturing costs more than extraction.

Also, if gold is used as a currency, it will be desirable for that very reason.

[Zamte]

Metal likely isn't going to be heavily used unless this game "advances" into future ages, so to speak. I've heard mention of the devs saying they'd like it to eventually, but I'm not sure if this was a statement that it'd be interesting, or if it is actually their intention.

Full metal structures, such as metal smelters, metal ovens, metal houses, and metal walls could easily be created and would use massive numbers of metal, and obviously require metal for repairs. With such things there would be metal sinks, but I still don't think it would solve the currency problem.

What about a mix of the two? Another "currency" used in our real world which I've not seen mentioned here, is salt. It's a mineral, like metal, and cannot simply be "created" (in game anyways). However as it is used in food, as well as in various other situations, it is also consumed steadily.

If a salt item was created, and collected in some manner, and remained quality-less, then it could make for a decent currency. It'd have to be common enough to be traded regularly and in decent quantities, but also useful enough to warrant people using it. Perhaps an alternative method for hide tanning ala drying rack and herb table's interactions, as well as use in various recipes from seasoning to salting the cauldron water. It could even have a direct use similar to pepper, where it would directly increase the quality of the food item (but only once per food) by 10 quality. This would be more useful than pepper on lower quality-limited foods such as cave bulbs, mussels, and other similar items, while not being to much on foods of higher qualities.