and Copernicus have the commonality about the theory "bad money drives out good
money" as it was our astronomer friend actually came up with the core of it
some years before Gresham's Law made the rounds.
been reflecting on this for several weeks and came to the realization
that I misunderstood. There is a relative aspect to what constitutes
good and bad money. In the most extreme good would be government tender
and bad would be counterfeit. In this case people would hoard the good
money and not mix the two for fear of by chance picking up a load of the
bad stuff. The bad money drove the good money "out of circulation".
OK. clear enough, but that isn't what Gresham really meant.
am now thinking that what was meant was when there were two forms of
currency in circulation when both the good and the bad were worth the
same under legal tender laws that the good money became a commodity.
Indeed our friend Copernicus was involved in turn coins into melted down
Nicolaus of Kopernic
a loaf of bread sells for a silver dollar you get a good buy if you pay
for it with bad money and you get taken if you buy it with good money.
Perhaps the commodity level is reached when the disparity is such that
the value of the good money isn't affected by melting it down into a
gold bar as you can't in any way produce a method "intra-currency" to
swap good for bad.
I was in Russia during the 80s dollars coming "in country" had to be
declared and exit had to equal entry. That was the theory. You could, however, freely convert
dollars to rubles so that the government effectively decided that the
dollar was good and the ruble bad.
If you decided to risk it and pay
locally there in dollars you got far more than the conversion rate would
indicate and as there were laws about citizens there owning dollars
these we driven out of circulation - not exactly Grisham/Copernicus's
thinking but a modern day equivalent.