Humanities desk
< March 12	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 13

Is the value of a nation's dollar in any way tied to its physical currency?

For example, if it was learned that handling US bills could cause cancer, or that 1/3 of all US currency was counterfeit, would the value of the dollar change? Ryan Vesey 16:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would decline, in both cases, although not by much. The cancer risk would primarily drive people to switch to credit cards and checks, but a small number would choose another currency, instead, in places where dual currencies are used. As for counterfeiting, the risk here is a panic that the counterfeiting could get worse, lowering the value, due to supply and demand. You might see a split between the value of online currency (higher) and physical bills (lower), or, if this didn't happen, the value of both would decline together. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. In both cases, upon such discoveries, there would be less physical currency circulating, at least for a while. The value of its electronic currency would increase, since it would be scarcer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the assumption that I might have had. At the same time, there'd be some sort of a currency scare where everyone would want to get rid of US paper bills they held driving the value down. I'd actually think the first would drive the value down, while the second would increase the value. Ryan Vesey 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take into account that only 10% of the money mass is physical currency. People would like to get rid of the bill in their pockets, but would not try to exchange their bank account into Canadian Dollars, gold or whatever. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be 100%, given that online money is massless ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, because of arbitrage. Both cases would certainly reduce the value (the willingness to provide goods and services in exchange for that dollar) of the physical dollar. If there is a difference in the value of a physical and electronic dollar, people will exploit anything which forces the exchange to be more equal than the "natural" differential would be. For example, taking advantage of the "legal tender for all debts public and private" clause, or enforcing laws or merchant agreements which limit the surcharge/discount they can charge for cash/credit. Even if it's a small differential, you can make a lot of money if you can move enough volume through the cycle. This would cause the value of the electronic dollar to more closely match that of the physical dollar. The only way to prevent it is to remove any restrictions which force a fixed or limited range of exchange rates between the two. (Of course, the size of the effect depends on the comparative ratios of the two pools of money, and how easy is it for people to divest themselves of the lower-valued physical dollar, which would effectively lower the size of the physical pool.) -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how would, as Osman says, the value of the electronic dollar increase due to scarcity? Would that mean, for instance, that if you poisoned a lot of paper money, gold bought with a credit card on line would become cheaper, since the value of electronic currency had gone up? μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A gold seller would get less business, since he won't be willing to accept the fake or poisoned bills, at least not for 1:1. The money mass would diminish by 10%, if all the physical currency disappeared completely. If 1/3 of the bills was discovered to be fake, 3.33% of the money mass would be lost. Those with electronic funds would be able to buy more of whatever, since the amount of products won't decrease by 3.33%. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that commodities dealers would give a better price for electronic than cash transactions, but I am not sure that that wouldn't just mean that cash would lose value while electronic prices would stay the same. It's still not like money has become more valuable as if it were backed by something solid. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a share of the currency disappears, no matter for whatever reason, that would make the remaining more valuable. Just imagine the opposite case: the government increases the amount of money available, and provokes inflation. In a real world scenario, however, the central bank would take measures to maintain everything the same. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this question being asked in a vacuum of real world responses (like a pure econ question) or in more natural terms? Because if bills were somehow defective, say they were contaminated with radioactive material, they'd quickly be destroyed and replaced. Counterfeit, on the other hand, would not be replaced, so presumably there'd be economic consequences. Shadowjams (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a project in rural Liberia where banks refused to accept old American dollars bills. The old American dollars in local circulation ended up trading at about 60 notes to a $50 bill. Sorry for the original research. Your Username 12:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relationship of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr?

What blood relationship was king Henry III of England to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr, if any? Was Gruffydd related to John Lackland in a direct blood line?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you'd think so? Our article on Gruffydd (1198-1244) has him completely Welsh: son of Llywelyn the Great (1172-1240) and his wife Tangwysth, Llywelyn son of Iorwerth Drwyndwn (1145-1174) and his wife Marared and Iorwerth son of Owain Gwynedd (1100-1170) and his wife Gwladys. All the wives have Welsh names. Henry III (1207-1272) on the other hand was son of John (1166-1216) and his French (second) wife Isabella of Angoulême, and both John and Isabella had French parents (Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine, Aymer of Angoulême and Alice of Courtenay). 184.147.116.201 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it, but the answer is still no. Gruffydd's father Llywelyn married John's illegitimate daughter Joan, Lady of Wales when Guffydd was about five years old. She was Gruffydd's stepmother and no blood relation. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Laumer and Cyril Kornbluth

How well did they know each other, if at all? Were they friends?199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is Laumer dead? I enjoyed some of his works when I was younger. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read The Infinite Cage76.218.104.120 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kornbluth worked with Frederik Pohl so you could try asking him, the email link is not to him but the person at the end of it may be able to help pass a message along. Another option is to try Sabrina Laumer, Keith's daughter. sabrinalaumer.com seems to be dead but this Facebook page may be her and this is her. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]