Might I recommend an excerpt from Charles Adams' unpublished book (“Peoplons, Charmons and the Strange One: the uncertain science of economics”) on “A Brief History of Money” that has a been published on the Progressive Pulse site today? Available here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
On the whole I prefer the film “Paint Your Wagon”. The theme song is “Where are we going, we don’t know.”
On the whole I find your comment curiously lacking in substance as to why you dislike Charles Adam’s extract! Can you do better?
I am struggling to understand your comment
Would I recommend something I disliked?
I am guessing that Demetrius’ comment was along the lines of, it may be better to watch The Wizard of Oz than read a textbook on the gold standard versus fiat money,
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interpretations_of_The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz) but of course it all depends where you are coming from. I played Monopoly for 30 years and did not get the message about land value tax. I have not seen “Paint your wagon” but I will take a look.
My comment is directed at Demetrius
I have found this source to be an interesting insight into the link between the Wizard of Oz and the the monetary conflict in the late 19th century America:
The following excerpt is from the blog of a neolb economist that I don’t particularly recommend (Greg Mankiw)
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.au/2006/05/wonderful-wizard-of-oz.html
but it is based on a paper form Hugh Rockoff (“The Wizard of Oz as a Monetary Allegory,” Journal of Political Economy, August 1990) who is quite authoritative on US economic history
https://www.unc.edu/~salemi/Econ006/Rockoff.pdf
“From 1880 to 1896 the price level in the United States fell 23 percent. This deflation was good for creditors, primarily the bankers of the Northeast, but it was bad for debtors, primarily the farmers of the South and West. One proposed solution to this problem was to replace the gold standard with a bimetallic standard, under which both gold and silver could be minted into coin. The move to a bimetallic standard would increase the money supply and stop the deflation.
The silver issue dominated the presidential election of 1896.
This debate over silver found its most memorable expression in a children’s book, The Wizard of Oz. Written by a Midwestern journalist, L. Frank Baum, just after the 1896 election, it tells the story of Dorothy, a girl lost in a strange land far from her home in Kansas. Dorothy (representing traditional American values) makes three friends: a scarecrow (the farmer), a tin woodman (the industrial worker), and a lion whose roar exceeds his might (William Jennings Bryan). Together, the four of them make their way along a perilous yellow brick road (the gold standard), hoping to find the Wizard who will help Dorothy return home. Eventually they arrive in Oz (Washington), where everyone sees the world through green glasses (money). The Wizard (William McKinley) tries to be all things to all people but turns out to be a fraud. Dorothy’s problem is solved only when she learns about the magical power of her silver slippers.
Although the Republicans won the election of 1896 and the United States stayed on a gold standard, the Free Silver advocates got the inflation that they wanted. Around the time of the election, gold was discovered in Alaska, Australia, and South Africa. In addition, gold refiners devised the cyanide process, which facilitated the extraction of gold from ore. These developments led to increases in the money supply and in prices. From 1896 to 1910 the price level rose 35 percent.”
Mankiw also notes that:
“No one really knows if Baum meant the story as an allegory, but it is a favorite for teaching economics nonetheless”.