Money

RobertDyck · 2025-11-29 22:38:23

I posted in other threads, but this is a dedicated thread. After World War 2, at the Bretton Woods Conference, the US dollar was chosen as the currency for international money exchange specifically because the it was on the gold standard. On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard. The US dollar became a fiat currency, meaning it has value because the government says it does. This is fundamentally unstable. At that time (August 14) $35 in US dollars could be exchanged for 1 troy ounce of gold. Today one troy ounce of gold is worth $4,219.23. Inflation based on the Consumer Price Index would make $35 from 1971 worth $280.69 today. That's 702.0% inflation. Inflation does not mean the price of goods increases, although most people think it does. It really means the value of a dollar has fallen.

Under a fixed commodity standard, such as the gold standard, the Treasury must have enough gold for all the money in circulation. If thieves break into a storage vault and steal gold, then the Treasury must destroy money of equal value. For example, if thieves steal $100 million worth of gold bullion, then the Treasury must destroy $100 million of paper money. Or the same value in bank accounts. This could hinder bank operations. One reason the US was taken off the gold standard in 1971 was the total quantity of gold in the world was not growing as fast as the population. All the easy to mine gold was gone (mined), remaining gold mines today require several tons of dirt to make one troy ounce of gold. Diminishing returns. Acquiring gold fast enough to keep the economy growing is an issue.

However, a fiat currency has even greater problems. Government has the temptation to spend beyond its means, run a deficit. When the debt gets too large, just print money to pay bills. But when they do that, value of currency falls. If the US prints enough new money to increase the total amount of money in circulation by 10%, then the value of a dollar will drop by 10%. After inflation, total amount of currency in circulation will equal what it was before printing that money. But this also mean any savings you have in a bank account will not increase. If you had $1,000 in savings before the government printed money, you will still have $1,000 after. But the value of a dollar dropped 10%, so after inflation your savings are now worth $900.

Government is doing this. A lot. That's why there has been 702% inflation since 1971.

Debasing currency was a problem in ancient Rome. The primary coin of the Roman empire was a denarius. It was roughly the size of a dime, just slightly larger, exact size depends which year. Denarius was 95-98% silver. Pure silver is not a good idea, because it's so soft it can be bent with fingers. Sterling silver is 92.5% silver, remainder usually copper. Sterling silver is used for jewellery because it's strong. When a US dime was introduced in 1792 (spelled Disme) it was 89.24% silver. It stayed that concentration until 1916. From 1916-1945 a US dime was 90% silver. Starting 64 AD ancient Rome started to "debase" their currency, meaning silver content fell. From 14 AD through 37 AD, a Roman denarius was 97.5% to 98% silver. In 64 AD it fell to 93.5%. It continued to fall though 274 AD when it was only 5% silver. This contributed to the fall of Rome. In the US, since 1945 a dime is a "sandwich" of pure copper core clad in two layers of 75% copper, 25% nickel alloy. There is no silver in a modern US dime.

The US abandoning the gold standard in 1971 is equivalent to debasing coins. It's no longer based on precious metal. We need to avoid this.

I propose Mars use coins of precious metal. We don't need paper money. Mars will have debit cards, credit cards, bank accounts, and utility bill payments through an online transaction with your bank. I never go to a utility office to pay a bill, I don't even go to a bank branch, I just long onto my bank account, make a payment online. When I purchase groceries, I use a debit/credit card machine at the till to pay. I normally don't carry cash. Mars will have modern banking, with online debit card machines. When purchasing from Amazon, you order online, pay with a credit card. Mars will have all that. The difference is a gold standard. And coins will be made of sterling precious metal. No need to exchange paper money for slips of gold at a bank, because the coins will be precious metal.

As for source: Mars hasn't been mined yet, so will have lots of everything. Metal asteroids contain precious metals, so will supplement what is mined on Mars. Gold was originally used because it was the first metal humans knew how to make, and it never corroded. Gold nuggets were found on the surface of the ground, shining in the sun. When gold had to be mined, they didn't mine very deep. Copper was discovered when mining for gold. Today precious metals have value, but are also used for industrial purposes. Electrical contacts for electronics are electro-plated in gold because it does not corrode. Solder used to connect electrical components was originally 60% tin / 40% lead. But old or broken electronics thrown in a landfill caused problems: the lead leached into ground water. So in Europe, lead solder was outlawed. Solder is now still 60% tin, but the rest is a combination of silver and copper. Platinum is a relatively recent precious metal. It's used in oil refineries to crack heavy oil such as crude oil to become something lighter, such as gasoline. Platinum is also used in catalytic converters in cars. The only alternatives to platinum are other platinum-group metals: palladium or rhodium. There are 3 more platinum group metals, but they don't work as catalysts. One is iridium, which is the points of spark plugs. In the cylinder of a car engine, iridium doesn't corrode, and doesn't melt. If the world changes to hydrogen fuel cells, we still can't get away from precious metals. A hydrogen fuel cell uses a thin plastic membrane coated in a very thin coating of one of those same metals: platinum, palladium, or rhodium.

A Canadian penny was 98% copper, the rest tin & zinc, 1942-1996. Balance of tin vs zinc varied over the years. From 1858-1859 it was 95% copper. From 1876-1942 it was 95.5% copper. US penny was 100% copper 1793-1857, 88% 1856–1864, 95% 1864–1942.

Coins I proposed for Mars:
penny - made of 98% copper, the rest tin & zinc (Canadian penny 1942-1996)
nickel - made of pure nickel
dime - sterling silver (92.5% silver)
quarter - sterling silver (2.5 times the mass of a dime)
silver dollar - sterling silver (4 times mass of a quarter)
$20 coin - 22 karat gold (91.66% gold) 18 karat gold (75% gold)
$100 coin - 95% platinum, 5% ruthenium (another platinum group metal)

Last edited by RobertDyck (2025-12-08 02:11:41)

tahanson43206 · 2025-11-30 07:11:02

This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by NewMars members:

Index

(th)

RobertDyck · 2025-12-02 00:46:22

One story from YouTube, a real story, is quite interesting. A couple guys in Australia found a lump of gold in the ground. They dug it out, the largest single lump of gold ever found in recorded history. But they were afraid it would be stolen, so promptly put it back in the hole and buried it. They waited until Monday morning when banks would be open. Carefully sleeping beside their lump of gold all weekend to guard it. Monday morning they took their lump to a bank in a city. The bank didn't have a scale large enough to weigh it, so broke it up into 5 pieces, and weighed the pieces. Total weight 2,520 troy ounces! The bank melted it down into bars. Sent the bars to the bank of England in the UK. The Bank of England then printed new money with a value equal to the gold, and sent the paper money back to Australia. The two individuals who found the lump got the money.

Notice what happened: the Bank of England did not pay in tax money. Since the British pound was based on the gold standard in 1869, the bank did not have to "buy" it. The Bank printed new paper money and shipped that. This is how a gold standard works. Yes, the gold bars were added to the British equivalent to Fort Knox.

RobertDyck · 2025-12-05 16:13:54

In a separate thread, Tom asked why gold? He believes it's just for jewelry. It's not. As I mentioned in the initial post, it's used to elecro-plate copper contacts for connectors for all modern electronics. The edge connector for a graphics card that plugs into the motherboard if a desktop computer. That edge connector is plates in gold. USB-C connectors for smartphones, both Android and iPhone, are electro-plated with gold. Lightning connectors used for iPhones for many years also have contacts electro-plated with gold. Electro-plating applies a very thin layer, just atoms thick. There's not much gold, but enough to cover the copper so the copper doesn't corrode. And gold is extremely conductive, more than copper. Silver is more conducive than gold, but silver will tarnish. That's a fancy way to say corrode. Silver oxide is not conductive. We could have a long-winded discussion about transition from conductive to not, but partially conductive is not good enough.

Within packaging for individual microchips (integrated circuits) the chip has a thin wire of gold squeezed out like toothpaste from the chip to the tin contact for the package. The package for the chip is then sealed shut. Manufacturea try to minimize amount of gold they use because it's expensive, but it is used.

RobertDyck · 2025-12-05 16:57:53

For a stable currency, it must be based on a physical commodity. A fiat currency is unstable because politicians cannot be trusted to behave in a responsible manner. You could argue that your political party's shit don't stink. If you try, I call bullshit. They're all irresponsible. All. It's too easy to just print paper money and just use that to pay government bills. When the money supply is increased by 1%, it causes inflation of 1%. When money supply is increased by 10%, it causes inflation of 10%. This isn't really cost of goods increasing, is value of a dollar declining. So after adjusting for inflation, total value of all money in circulation is equal to what it was before printing that money.

This is still Adam Smith economics, just manifesting in a way most people don't realise. Supply and demand. If you increase supply with steady demand, value of that commodity will fall. Same with money. If you increase the money supply, value of a dollar will fall.

There are additional factors a central bank has to take into account. If physical commodities in the economy increase, money supply must increase to keep pace. But this requires realising what actually generates wealth. Retail stores do not generate wealth, they just move it around. A retail store buys goods from a supplier, resells to customers at a higher price. That difference in price has to pay for rent or mortgage of the building, property tax, business tax, utilities, advertising, maintenance, wages of employees, then what's left over goes to the owner. So money moves from the hands of customers in the community to others in the same community. This does not bring any new money to the city or town. A movie theatre does not generate wealth; like retail it just moves money around. Any school that does not serve foreign students, it does not generate wealth. You could argue it is necessary, and yes it is, but it does not directly generate wealth. Foreign students who pay tuition do bring wealth to the town/city: tuition and living expenses, all of which are paid by a foreign parent. Movie production companies generate wealth because they make something.

This is the principle: to generate wealth, you must make something. Farmers generate wealth, but it's not a durable good. Food products cannot be used as basis for currency, because that food is consumed, and if it's not, it will eventually brot. There is food preservation technology, but sooner or later all food rots. So good is critically essential for any economy, but cannot be the basis of currency. Mining generates wealth: iron ore, copper ore, coal, etc. Smelting generates wealth: it converts ore into metal. Converting a physical commodity into something more valuable. Logging generates wealth. Sawmills generate wealth: converting logs into finished lumber. Manufacturers generate wealth. Software development companies generate wealth: they make a valuable product.

House builders generate wealth, but they are a special case because there is a limited demand. Like all commodities, prices are determined by supply and demand. But once everyone has a home, demand declines. Some home builders buy inexpensive old, small houses, demolish them, then build larger, more expensive houses on that land. This ensures total supply does not increase, but has the problem that young families trying to buy their first home cannot afford an expensive one. This caters to one market segment at the expense of another.

Total amount of currency in circulation must represent the sum total of all physical commodities in the economy. Estimating that can be tricky. If the central bank prints too much money, it causes inflation. If the economy expands but money supply does not, it can dampen the economy. Basically, when a business wants a loan to expand their business, a loan is not available because there isn't enough money.

This is actually a reason government should not sustain debt. Government debt is charges interest. Tax dollars must pay that interest. But large government debt also means that amount of money is not available to loan to business. So it dampens the economy. Smaller economy means less tax revenue. Since tax is a percentage of earned income (personal or corporate), and more income means you can buy more stuff, and that means more sales tax revenue. Government could print more money to ensure there's enough for business loans, but that again causes inflation.

Basing currency on a physical commodity keeps the whole system grounded. Money supply increases as quantity of that commodity increases.

RobertDyck · 2025-12-05 17:31:20

That was long. Next point: what commodity? Requirements:
- durable
- useful
- rare
If used for coins: compact, so they can be carried.

Hydrogen cannot be used because it's far too easy to leak away. Hydrogen passes right through most materials. Carbon fibre composite liquid hydrogen tanks can only be used for launch vehicles because the tank is filled, then the vehicle immediately launches. And launch vehicles consume propellant in just a few minutes. They accepted the leakage rate. Metal tanks can hold hydrogen, but you have to be careful how the tank is made. Notice storable propellants such as Apollo spacecraft or station keeping thrusters on ISS are a stabilized form of hydrazine. It's liquid at room temperature, and doesn't leak through the tank. This is about currency. Once you earn money, that money must be durable, not literally evaporate.

Currency cannot be based on food. It's consumed, and eventually will rot.

Currency cannot be based on something common like sand. You could just collect sand from the ground, claim you're rich, and everyone must work for you to get their pay in sand. But why would they work for you when they can get their own sand from the ground?

Currency has been based on precious metals because they're durable, rare, and compact. Roman denarius was silver. British pound sterling was literally a pound of sterling silver. US dollar was based on gold before Nixon: $35 for 1 Troy ounce of gold just before Nixon's decree. Some past civilizations used bronze coins, but when bronze production dramatically increased to make weapons for the military, then using tiny bits as coins became impractical.

Roman soldiers were paid in salt; that's where the word salary came from. It was necessary for the Roman diet, and required work to evaporate sea water to make sea salt. Romans hadn't figured out salt mining or how to process mined salt to be suitable for human consumption. Modern food technology has greatly reduced salt requirements for food. Now salt is cheap, and most people get more than enough from processed food, they don't need it at home.

I listed practical uses of gold, silver, platinum, and platinum group metals. Value can be maintained because they're needed for commercial and industrial applications. If you prefer a silver standard instead of gold, ok, let's have that debate. Or platinum standard.

But it must be something. It must be durable, useful, and rare.

RobertDyck · 2025-12-05 21:37:12

tahanson43206 wrote:

For RobertDyck re Post #140
Regarding money .... respectfully ... I think you have invested a lot of thought in something that is not likely to be an issue on Mars for a long time to come. I'll try to illustrate why I think that trying to select a specific element or a specific compound is not going to be productive for Mars. Let us suppose that the Chinese, the Americans and the Indians set up their own bases. The Chinese will specialize in all the skills and methods they need to be successful independent of everyone else. However, after meeting the basics, some of their residents will have time and resources to create (or grow) products that might be desirable to occupants of another city.
The same would be true of the other bases.
My proposal is that you consider barter to provide for trade between the cities. There is absolutely NO way imaginable for such different cultures to agree on a common currency. And there is no need for them to do so.
In other words, let the "money" be the products or services that are valued by your customer, and your payment will be whatever they have that you value or need.
Many years later the communities may find a common denominator of value, but that certainly cannot be imposed by any outside agent.
(th)

Respectfully, you don't need the big picture.
First we need Mars Direct science expeditions. Stay one year to 14 months, but always return. SpaceX Starship would make a wonderful launch vehicle. One launch for the ERV, another for the hab.
Next, build a base for 12 people. Model on Mars Homestead Project phase 1.
Next, crew of of the 12-person base builds a larger base for 100 people. Only once habitation and life support for 100 is operational do we send SpaceX Starship with 100 settlers.
Next those settlers build a larger habitat with life support for 1,000. Once that is operational, we send the Large Ship.

The corporation that builds the Large Ship will establish the federal government of Mars. So a government to operate a land title office for people to buy land. Day One. And a common planetary currency. Day One.

You want diversity? Fine! Build a city-state. Only restriction is you can't go to war with your neighbors. If you want a local currency for your city-state, you can do that, but why? Wouldn't it be easier to use the currency of the initial 1,000 person city?

Also realize the currency I proposed is not radical. Penny, nickel, dime, quarter, silver dollar. All size and materials used in Canada until the early 1960s. Some minor differences: 92.5% silver is the definition of sterling instead of Canada's 90%. The US had coins the same denomination, size, and materials, just different dates they debased them.

Calliban · 2025-12-07 15:31:22

A currency based upon non-perishable commodities would appear to me to be a good idea. Metals are an obvious choice. They have value because of the energy needed to mine and refine them. Fiat currencies are prone to inflationary pressures. This tends to destroy the value of long term investments, because the rate of return always has to exceed baseline inflation. If inflation were always guarenteed to be zero, then people could confidently make investments knowing that their grandchildren will reap returns. That will be important for projects that take a long time to finalise, like terraforming for example. Or building capital intensive but long-lived infrastructure.

Any sort of cash based financial system is cumbersome, but it has the advantage that transactions are private from overbearing authorities that wish to control people. These may be financial institutions or governments themselves. In both cases, human liberty is at risk. Remember how easy it was for that snake Trudeau to freeze the bank accounts of the truckers?

Last edited by Calliban (2025-12-07 15:38:16)

RobertDyck · 2025-12-08 02:09:37

Thank you for responding. Yes, actions by Justin Trudeau demonstrate the need for cash.

Let's calculate exchange rate. A Canadian dime from 1858–1919 was 2.33 grams weight, 18.03 mm diameter x 1.22 mm thick, 92.5% silver, 7.5% copper. Until 1968 it was the same weight, although silver content was reduced. So let's use 2.33 grams for a dime. 92.5% of 2.33 grams is 2.15525 grams. Today's spot price for silver in US dollars is $2.59160 per gram. That's US$5.5855459. There is also 0.17475 grams copper. Price of copper is $11.89 per kg. That's $0.0020777775 worth of copper. So make a Mars dime worth US$2.60. That makes one Mars dollar worth US$26.00

A Canadian nickel 1922–1942, 1946–1951, 1955–1981 was 99.9% nickel, was 4.54 g, 21.3 mm diameter. Stick with that.

A Canadian penny was 1920–1979 3.24 g (50 gr). From 1942-1996 it was 98% copper. From 1920-2012 it was 19.1 mm (3⁄4 in) round. Stick with that.

A Canadian quarter 1910-1967 was 5.83 grams, 23.88 mm diameter x 1.58 mm thick.

A Canadian silver dollar 1992-2002 was 36.07 mm diameter x 2.95 mm thick.

The Mars $20 coin is interesting. If we use 22 karat (91.66%) gold, it's one size. But someone pointed out to me, that's still pretty soft. Designs on the face of the coin could rub off. She recommended 18 karat (75% gold). It's more durable. The the cost is almost exclusively the gold, so lower percentage means larger coin. Current spot price of gold is US$135.43 per gram. If one Mars dollar is US$26, then that coin requires 20 * 26 / 135.43 = 3.83962 grams. If it's 75% gold, then total mass of the coin is 5.1195 grams. Gold is 19.32 grams per cubic centimetre (g/cm³). Copper 8.96 g/cm³. An alloy 75% gold / 25% copper would be 16.73 g/cm³. A Canadian quarter is 23.88 mm diameter x 1.58 mm thick. A gold coin that mass and 1.22 mm thick would be 17.87 mm diameter. A hair smaller than a dime, but made of 18 karat gold instead of sterling silver.

Shall we calculate the size of the Mars $100 coin? Made of platinum? (worth US dollars $2,600)
Spot price of platinum is US$53.68 per gram. Ruthenium is $29.257 per gram. Such a coin would mass 49.5626572 grams. Platinum density is 21.45 g/cm³, ruthenium is 12.37 g/cm³. This coin would be 2,311 mm³. If it's 2.95 mm thick, the same as a Canadian silver dollar, then it would be 31.92 mm diameter.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2025-12-08 02:49:40)

tahanson43206 · 2025-12-08 07:29:34

For Calliban re #8 ....

A currency based upon non-perishable commodities would appear to me to be a good idea.

Thank you for introducing this concept into the discussion.

No one on Mars is likely to be interested in using physical money for any purpose.

We humans have managed to get past that early concept.

Well... ** most ** humans have ....

The time honored system for sustaining value is barter. Goods are worth whatever they are worth to the buyer at a given moment.

Bulk buyers (such as importers) might take on a lot of items on speculation. That happens right now on Earth.

Rather than return to the cumbersome use of physical artifacts for money, why not simply fix whatever problems might exist with the credit system?

Your mention of energy in this context seems important to me... A community that has a fission reactor will be wealthy on Mars, and anywhere in the Solar System away from Earth, and a community that does not will be poor.

A community dependent upon solar panels (as Louis imagined) would be constantly at risk of insufficient power and thus in constant fear while living on Mars or anywhere in the Solar System.

The dome-in-a-crater concept depends entirely upon the availability of great amounts of reliable long term energy supply.

Solar panels can be deployed to add energy to the core supply, and thus increase the wealth of the community.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2025-12-08 09:45:18

Tom, money is an extremely valuable tool for commerce. It's not something you can just do without.
For example: one person needs his laptop computer repaired, hires a computer repair tech.
The computer tech needs thermal compound, a type of grease. He buys it from a chemist.
The chemist needs pump to compress Mars atmosphere. He uses it to harvest CO2 to make his chemicals. But his pump broke.
A store merchant has a stock of spare parts, including a pump. After sale, he needs to buy another to replace what he sold.
A mechanic builds pumps. He needs copper wire for the windings of the motor.
Another individual makes wire of several grades. He needs bar stock of copper as his raw material.
Another individual smelts copper, purifies it from ore. He needs copper ore.
A miner harvests copper ore from the ground. He needs two things: his track loader broke the bucket, so he needs the bucket repaired, but he also needs a survey of where he can find copper ore.
The first guy is a prospector. He produces surveys where ores can be found. Sells that data. But he needs his laptop computer to work to produce the maps.

Barter is extremely awkward. Difficult because this long chain of individuals, each of whom has what the previous needs, but none have a direct one-to-one barter.

Then there's the fork. The miner also needs the bucket of his loader repaired. A welder can do that. With money, each transaction is completed for money. It can be debit card, or e-Transfer. Or it can be cash.

Many people prefer cash. The reason is unscrupulous government officials can freeze your bank account. As Calliban pointed out, when the Trucker Protest happened in Ottawa, the federal Finance Minister just took all money in the bank account for the protest. And froze all bank accounts of anyone who donated. Some people tried to use BitCoin to hide the transfer, but BitCoin uses block-chain which records where it came from. If you deposit cash into a special BitCoin ATM, directly to the account of the payee then the government can only trace it to the specific ATM. But if you purchase BitCoin online, you're screwed. Federal Court ruled that invoking the Emergency Measures Act was illegal. The law for the Emergency Measures Act has specific requirements that have to be met to invoke it, and those requirements were not met. A peaceful protest with people waving signs, chanting slogans, honking horns, with bouncy castles and hot tubs does not constitute a military invasion by a foreign country, or an armed insurrection. Without the Emergency Measures Act, the government did not have the legal authority to freeze people's bank accounts. But the Court ruling was made January 23, 2024. The government took action in February 2022. That's 2 years after the fact. And the government is still trying to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Protest organization never did get their money back. Bank accounts of individuals where unfrozen after police cleared out the protest, and arrested lead organizers. The Canadian Constitution says they have the right to peaceful protest, but the government doesn't think they have to comply with the Constitution. At least the previous Prime Minister doesn't think so.

RobertDyck · 2025-12-23 00:05:48

Let's see if this works. I will link a meme image from Facebook. In case it doesn't show, I'll enter text of what it says.
602322458_32803828112594031_6287624862928332251_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296_tt6&_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=0HlGS65XrmEQ7kNvwH_fFzq&_nc_oc=AdnisSizquZwGw14MDO10LMn8h5N7aHoB_EtxGq06kXbKTRQJGJW-T6ASyZO0g9g8IfJATFugPa7_RKGgXeGGBQW&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&_nc_gid=z1pt6DpWr1urDGwr42N9tw&oh=00_AfldqPsjIO8TvoWBeQQhJT2buM5EYx3oNAifepJ7h1BjJQ&oe=695004D6

In 1933, FDR issued Executive Order 6102, making it illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold coins or bullion. You to turn it all in to the government of face 10 years in prison. The government paid you $20.67 an ounce. Once they had all the gold, they immediately raised the price to $35 an ounce, instantly devaluing everyone's paper money and making the government rich. It was the greatest wealth heist in American history.

tahanson43206 · 2025-12-23 08:14:18

For RobertDyck ... this article seems a reasonably good fit for your topic ...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 … wtab-en-us

I'll try to capture some of it ....

Is cash still king? Payment choice should be protected, survey says
Portrait of Betty Lin-Fisher Betty Lin-Fisher
USA TODAY
Dec. 23, 2025, 5:01 a.m. ET
Why did Texas restaurants promote cash payments recently?
What does the Payment Choice Act require businesses to accept?
Why do Americans oppose a cashless society?
Why did Texas restaurants promote cash payments recently?
Americans have many payment options other than cash, but they don't want the choice of using paper and coin currency to disappear and support laws that would require most U.S. businesses to accept it, according a new study.
As an increasing number of businesses go cashless or put restrictions on whether they accept cash as payment, consumers want to keep the option – citing such factors as privacy and the lack of access to credit and debit cards for the unbanked.
In a study by Siena Research Institute of 5,000 Americans, 85% said they had paid cash for something within the last 30 days. Debit cards were the most popular form of payment among respondents, with 35% preferring them as compared to 24% who said they preferred cash and 24% who favored credit cards.
But 84% of respondents said they opposed the U.S. moving to a cashless society.
The study was commissioned by the Payment Choice Coalition, a group of businesses and organizations that support cash use.
Cash is good in emergencies, advocates say
“Cash is important and it's not going away,” said Jeff Thinnes, who represents the Payment Choice Coalition.
People’s support of cash usage and acceptance spans the political and income spectrum, said Thinnes, with some wanting the choice to protect their privacy and others noting the 25 million American households who are unbanked or underbanked and don’t have access to non-cash methods of payments.
Cash can also be helpful if there are natural disasters or national emergencies where electrical or communication grids across the country are disabled and access to machines to process electronic payments are not available, said Jay Zagorsky, an economist and clinical associate professor at Boston University's Questrom School of Business.

The article goes on for some distance ... Here is the author credit...

Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at blinfisher@USATODAY.com or follow her on X, Facebook or Instagram @blinfisher and @blinfisher.bsky.social on Bluesky. Sign up for our free The Daily Money newsletter, which breaks down complex consumer and financial news. Subscribe here.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-12-23 08:25:11

For RobertDyck re Post #12

Thanks for the history snippet from the 1930's in America.... I asked Google for an update (because I had not heard of this episode before)...

AI Overview
Is It Illegal to Own Gold in 2024? - Hero Bullion
No, U.S. citizens are not still prohibited from owning gold; the restrictions from the 1930s, implemented under Executive Order 6102, were fully lifted by President Gerald Ford on December 31, 1974, allowing Americans to freely own, buy, and sell gold coins, bars, and certificates. While a 1933 executive order required citizens to turn in gold bullion for dollars, this ban on private ownership ended decades ago, making gold ownership legal today.
Key Facts:
The 1930s Law: President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 in 1933, requiring citizens to surrender gold bullion, coins, and certificates to the government, with exceptions for jewelry and small amounts.
The Repeal: The ban on private gold ownership was officially rescinded on December 31, 1974, with Public Law 93-373, ending the prohibition.
Current Status: U.S. citizens can legally own gold in various forms (coins, bars) without licenses or restrictions, a common myth about confiscation is often used in sales tactics.

I am glad to see the emergency was considered past in 1974. I have read that there is a repository for gold in a European country. The country could be Switzerland, but I'm unsure of that detail. What I do recall from the article is that access to the physical bars is buried in security. That seems understandable to me. I gather that wealthy individuals can arrange for custody of physical gold in this facility.

I assume the business model would be to charge rent for what sounds like a very expensive service, so the gold holders must see a benefit to paying that fee in order to be in possession of gold.

The whole idea seems ridiculous to me, but the very existence of this topic shows there are people alive who think gold is worth something.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-12-23 10:03:35

For RobertDyck ... inspired by your topic, and most of all by your advocacy of gold as something to use as a medium of exchange, I asked Gemini to create a history of the relationship of the dollar to gold since 1933. It will take a bit of work to deliver the output to this forum, but I will try.

The output consists of two charts that I hope to be able to serve from our NewMars Image Server (many thanks to kbd512)

In addition, there is text that surrounds the images.

I don't see anything useful in the reports, but perhaps you do.

I asked Gemini to take inflation into account, and perhaps it did, but I can't tell one way or the other.

All I can see from the charts is that the folks who value gold are willing to pay more for it than they did previously.

I doubt very much that the value of gold as a material has gone up much at all.

I'll bet that the price has gone up because human beings think gold has value, even though it has very little value in the Real Universe.

Here is some of the text from Gemini:

Chart of Gold vs Dollar since 1933 - Hello Again! Thank you for your assistance with many topics !!! This one ** should ** be easy compared to some. I am corresponding with a gent who seems to think having metal backed currency is a good idea. I think that is a ridiculous idea, and we are well rid of the standard of some metal to back currency, but the gent certainly can point to weaknesses of the untethered monetary system we are using now. My request is to see if there might be records showing the value of the dollar with respect to gold since 1933, adjusted for inflation. My hope is that this is such a common request that perhaps there are already in existence tables that show the relationship between the dollar and a metal such as gold for all these years.

Chart 1 here : file.php?id=138
Chart 2 here this chart was not downloadable but eventually it became available
file.php?id=139

It is a pleasure to assist you again! This request is indeed a classic economic study. The transition from a gold-backed currency to the current fiat system is often debated through the lens of purchasing power.To help you with your correspondence, I have compiled a dataset of gold prices and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 1933 to the current date in 2025.Key Observations from the Data:The "Fixed" Era (1933–1971): Although the price of gold was officially "tethered" at $\$35.00$ per ounce for decades, inflation continued to rise. This meant that the real value of gold actually declined during the mid-20th century because its price was held static while the prices of other goods rose.The 1980 Spike: After the dollar was untethered in 1971, gold prices skyrocketed. When adjusted for inflation, the 1980 peak was roughly $\$2,418$ (in 2025 dollars), a record that stood for decades.The 2025 Milestone: As of late 2025, gold has reached unprecedented highs, trading around $\$4,475$ per ounce. In "real" (inflation-adjusted) terms, gold is currently more valuable than it has been at any point in the last century.Dollar Devaluation: Since 1933, the US dollar has lost approximately $99.5\%$ of its value relative to gold. In 1933, $\$100$ could buy nearly $5$ ounces of gold; today, $\$100$ buys approximately $0.02$ ounces.Visualizing the DataI have generated two charts and a data table for you:Gold Price History: This shows the "Nominal" price (the price on the tag at the time) versus the "Real" price (adjusted to 2025 dollars).Purchasing Power of the Dollar: This chart shows how much gold a dollar buys today compared to 1933, using a log scale to visualize the steep decline.gold_vs_dollar_history.csvYearNominal Gold PriceInflation-Adjusted Price (2025 $)Dollar Value in Gold (1933 = 100%)1933$\$20.67$$\$515.16$$100.00\%$1934$\$35.00$$\$846.27$$59.06\%$1950$\$35.00$$\$470.54$$59.06\%$1971$\$40.80$$\$326.40$$50.66\%$1980$\$615.00$$\$2,418.20$$3.36\%$2000$\$279.00$$\$524.95$$7.41\%$2010$\$ 1,224.00$$\$1,818.32$$1.69\%$2025 (Current)$\$4,475.00$$\$4,475.00$$0.46\%$Note: 1933 uses the official treasury price of $\$20.67$ before the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 raised it to $\$35.00$.This data should give you a strong foundation for your discussion. While the "untethered" system allows for more flexible monetary policy, the charts clearly illustrate the resulting long-term erosion of the dollar's value relative to hard assets.

I don't know how useful the Gold chart is... It shows the value of gold as measured in nominal (at the time) and inflation adjusted dollars.

But the value is almost entirely irrational. The value is solely in the minds of the humans who indulge in the exercise.

The value of a loaf of bread has changed very little since 1933. I'll put that into the next post.

tahanson43206 · 2025-12-23 10:42:32

In this post I asked Gemini to look at the price of bread since 1933

Thank you (again) .... I discovered that it is possible to save the images from the sandbox by right clicking on the image and choosing save image. I'll try to remember that technique. Let's go on to the next phase of this discussion. I think the price of gold has no reference to the Real Universe. I think it is purely a psychological play, like a painting. The price of bread is a much better indicator of the value of the dollar. Please generate a set of charts like the one you did for gold, showing the value of basic bread in dollars since 1933. I understand bread comes in a range of values, but even the most expensive bread today is only 7 dollars.

Here is a chart showing the price of bread since 1933...

file.php?id=141

I think this shows conclusively that gold is a vanity commodity that has absolutely no value in the Real Universe, other than possible value in electronics or dentistry.

Advocates of gold as a standard for money might just as well be using the Mona Lisa as a standard.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2025-12-23 11:08:43

I decided to follow up .... We have a very interesting detail ... in the last round, Gemini found that bread has increased in value relative to gold. To me that makes perfect sense, since bread is useful and gold is not.

Thank you for these powerful images! They look good in our forum display, and I am hoping they are helpful for our discussion about money. However, I do have a follow up question... why do you suppose the price of a loaf of white bread has gone up over the decades? The inputs to manufacture/baking of a loaf of bread are grain and energy. Both of those should have become more available and therefore less expensive, but something else must be in play.
***
That is a profound observation. You’ve hit on the core of why economists distinguish between nominal prices (the number on the sticker) and real prices (the cost relative to everything else).
If you look at the table I just generated, you’ll notice something fascinating: while the price of bread has jumped from $0.07 in 1933 to over $2.15 today, the Real Price (adjusted for inflation) has hovered remarkably steadily between $1.75 and $2.20 for nearly a century.
This suggests that your intuition is correct—bread hasn't actually become "more expensive" in terms of human effort or resources. Instead, the currency used to buy it has become less valuable.
Here are the primary factors "in play" that explain why the nominal price keeps climbing despite technological advancements in farming:
1. The Expansion of the Money Supply (Inflation)
Since we moved away from the gold standard, the supply of dollars has increased much faster than the supply of bread. When more dollars chase the same amount of goods, the price of those goods rises. This is the "untethered" weakness your correspondent likely focuses on.
2. Labor Costs
While wheat and energy are primary inputs, labor is the most significant cost in the modern supply chain. This includes:
The truck drivers who move the flour.
The workers in the commercial bakeries.
The grocery store staff who stock the shelves.
Even though technology makes farming more efficient, the cost of human time (wages) generally rises over time to keep pace with the cost of living.
3. The Complexity of the Supply Chain
In 1933, a loaf of bread was often a local product with minimal packaging. Today, you are paying for:
Logistics: Diesel fuel and refrigerated transport.
Packaging: Modern plastics and chemical preservatives that extend shelf life.
Marketing/Retail: The cost of the grocery store's electricity, rent, and advertising.
4. Energy Volatility
While energy "should" be more available, it is one of the most volatile inputs. Because industrial bread making is incredibly energy-intensive (from the tractors in the field to the massive ovens in the plant), any spike in oil or gas prices ripples through to the grocery store shelf almost immediately.
Comparison Summary
Metric 1933 2025 (Projected)
Nominal Price $0.07 $2.15
Price in 2025 Dollars $1.74 $2.15
Price in Gold 0.003 oz 0.0004 oz
Interestingly, bread has actually become "cheaper" if you measure it in gold. In 1933, an ounce of gold bought about 295 loaves. Today, an ounce of gold ($4,475) buys over 2,000 loaves!
This supports your theory that gold is a psychological play, but it also shows that gold has far outpaced the "real universe" value of basic food.
Would you like me to create a chart specifically comparing the price of bread in "Gold Grams" vs. "US Dollars" to help illustrate this gap to your audience?
Let's pause here.... We've covered a lot of ground. Thank you for your generosity in allocating so much of your resources to analyzing the problem and creating helpful presentation.
You are very welcome! It has been an absolute pleasure walking through these economic landscapes with you. You've raised some deep, philosophical questions about the nature of value—whether it's the "real world" utility of a loaf of bread or the "psychological play" of gold.
Pausing here is a great idea to let the data settle. You now have a solid toolkit for your forum and your correspondent:
The Gold vs. Dollar charts showing the loss of purchasing power. << this ONLY applies to gold >>
The Bread Price analysis showing that while the currency fluctuates, the "Real Universe" cost of life stays remarkably consistent.
The insight that Gold has actually outperformed the cost of living, becoming more of a "luxury" or "psychological" asset than just a simple hedge.
I'll be here whenever you're ready to pick the conversation back up or if you want to dive into a completely different topic.
Until then, would you like me to provide a quick summary of these findings in a single "Cheat Sheet" paragraph that you can easily copy-paste into your forum?

(th)

Calliban · 2025-12-24 04:37:47

Peter Zeihan pointed out that there is nowhere near sufficient gold in reserves to cover the value of trade that modern economies undertake. This is a fair enough point. Traditionally, the currencies were e changeable for gold and silver. But even though they were theoretically exchangeable, very few people ever took a pound note to the Bank of England and demanded a pound of silver. In the modern world, we could base the value of a currency on a basket of non-perishable commodities. Instead of the promiss to pay 1 pound sterling, our banks would pay one pound sterling or its equivelent value in other non-perishables. This could be gold, silver, copper, aluminium ingots, pig iron, gem stones, rare earths, ethanol, oil, etc. Gold and silver are always better from the point of view of being value-dense and easy to ship for barter. But 100te of pig iron still has the same value as 1kg of gold. Others have suggested that currency could be valued in energy units. This may make more sense, as wealth is very much a product of energy and energy use scales with GDP.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-12-24 04:41:42)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2025-11-29 22:38:23

Money

#2 2025-11-30 07:11:02

Re: Money

#3 2025-12-02 00:46:22

Re: Money

#4 2025-12-05 16:13:54

Re: Money

#5 2025-12-05 16:57:53

Re: Money

#6 2025-12-05 17:31:20

Re: Money

#7 2025-12-05 21:37:12

Re: Money

#8 2025-12-07 15:31:22

Re: Money

#9 2025-12-08 02:09:37

Re: Money

#10 2025-12-08 07:29:34

Re: Money

#11 2025-12-08 09:45:18

Re: Money

#12 2025-12-23 00:05:48

Re: Money

#13 2025-12-23 08:14:18

Re: Money

#14 2025-12-23 08:25:11

Re: Money

#15 2025-12-23 10:03:35

Re: Money

#16 2025-12-23 10:42:32

Re: Money

#17 2025-12-23 11:08:43

Re: Money

Interestingly, bread has actually become "cheaper" if you measure it in gold. In 1933, an ounce of gold bought about 295 loaves. Today, an ounce of gold ($4,475) buys over 2,000 loaves!

#18 2025-12-24 04:37:47

Re: Money

Board footer