[PEN-L:367] Naive question on Japanese Debt

[michael perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I want to ask a question about Japanese debt by beginning with some
notes that I have taken:
Keynes. 1915, "The Island of Stone Money." Economic Journal (June);
reprinted CW, 11, pp. 406-9.
  406: The islanders of Uap were "a people whose ideas on currency are
probably more truly philosophical than those of any other country."
Furness, William Henry. 1910. The Island of Stone Money (Philadelphia:
Lippincott Company).
  Furness was an anthropologist who visited Uap in 1903.  The people
have no access to metals.  For money they had large stone disks carved
on another island.
  92-3: "the simple hearted natives of Uap, who never heard of Adam
Smith nor of Ricardo, or even if they should hear of them would care no
more for them than for an English song from the phonograph, have solved
the ultimate problem of Political Economy, and found that labour is the
true medium of exchange.  But this medium must be tangible and enduring,
and as their island yields no metal, they have had recourse to stone;
stone, on which labour in fetching and fashioning has been expended, and
as truly as representation of labour as the mined and minted coins of
civilisation."
93: These stones are quarried and shaped in Pelao, 400 miles to the
south.
94: These stones must be of a particular variety and quality of
limestone.
96: A transaction does not require that the fei be physically moved.  It
is enough that the former owner acknowledge the transfer of ownership of
the fei.
97-8: "Many years ago an ancestor of this family, on an expedition after
fei [the stone money], secured this remarkably large and exceedingly
valuable stone, which was placed on a raft to be towed homeward.  A
violent storm arose, and the party, to save their lives, were obliged to
cut the raft adrift, and the stone sank out of sight.  When they reached
home, they all testified that the fei was of magnificent proportions and
of extraordinary quality, and that it was lost through no fault of the
owner.  Thereupon it was universally conceded in their simple faith that
the mere accident of its loss overboard was too trifling to mention, and
that a few hundred feet of water off shore ought not to affect its
marketable value, since it was all chipped out in proper form.  The
purchasing power of that stone remains, therefore, as valid as if it
were leaning visibly against the side of the owner's house."

Now, my naive question:  How is the revelation of the $1 billion in
Japanese debt different from the sinking of the Uap's fei?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx