Value and Currency/Re: two currencies and Korean war

["Harry Veeder" <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, William F Hummel wrote:
>> But legal tender FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES is
>> precisely what chartalism is all about.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2002,
Alan G. Isaac wrote:
>Legal tender laws are more than that, as you are well aware.  But
>legal tender laws are *also* just one institutional means to support the
>expectation that currency will retain value.

I don't think the ability of a currency to _retain_ value is a necessary
feature of a currency. What is essential is that currency be considered
the preferred means for _collecting_ value. Currency must first function
as device for the _collection_ of value before it can function as
device for the _retention_ of value.

I'll explain what this means by an analogy. If people want to collect
water  (a sort of 'value'), a bucket is a good thing to have even
while the bucket does not happen to contain water.
Similarly, if people want to collect value, through taxation
the currency becomes the preferred device (the preferred 'bucket')
for the collection of value even if the currency should begin
to lose value like a leaky bucket.

Harry Veeder