Indian Economy Grinds To A Halt After Cash-Ban: "Faith In System Shaken"

Zerohedge ^ | Nov 17, 2015 | Tyler Durden

[Garth Tater]

Nope. They might be barter items or act as a medium of exchange but they do not meet any of the other definitions of money.

What definition of money are you using?

[lucky american]

The world is watching to see how this goes. This is a tyrannical government’s dream. No way am I giving up my cash.

[Former Proud Canadian]

(1) It must be durable: I don't know if the detergent breaks down over time or not.

(2) It must be divisible: Questionalbe.

(3) It must be convenient: Not convenient.

(4) It must be consistent: Might qualify.

(5) It must possess value in itself: Yes.

(6) It must be limited in the quantity that is available: Yes.

(7) It should have a long history of acceptance: Nope.

(8) It must be a store of value: No.

There are other characteristics but these will do for now. Bottles of branded whiskey of a known quality are better substitutes for detergent.

[Former Proud Canadian]

When I joined FR the Canadian PM was a liberal moron and I was not proud of my country. Then we enjoyed many years of enlightenment under PM Harper. My screen name didn’t fit. Now we have come full circle with another liberal clown in Ottawa. Name fits again.

[j. earl carter]

Seeing as how Harper was the PM while the witch hunts were conducted against Free Dominion (and many others), you could make a good case that the screen name has always been appropriate.

[Garth Tater]

(1) It must be durable: I don't know if the detergent breaks down over time or not.

Very long lasting. That's why it is used for money.

(2) It must be divisible: Questionalbe.

Comes in 8, 12, 16, 24, 32 and 64 ounce bottles. Pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, dollars, etc. And you can buy it in bulk if you wish.

(3) It must be convenient: Not convenient.

Clean, handy jugs. Easy to tote around, store on a shelf, transport in your trunk. It has an additional benefit that it is just bulky enough to be difficult to steal in large value quantities. Like copper coins. A very big benefit to a poor man living in the ghetto with an easily kicked in door.

(4) It must be consistent: Might qualify.

Yep. Protected by consumer protection laws and enforced by govt agencies. FDA, etc.

(5) It must possess value in itself: Yes.

Yep. Even more common uses for detergent than for gold or silver.

(6) It must be limited in the quantity that is available: Yes.

Darn. This detergent stuff is starting to sound a lot like money.

(7) It should have a long history of acceptance: Nope.

Notice your use of the word "should" in there. Not a deal-breaker. When platinum coins first started to be coined they were still money.

(8) It must be a store of value: No.

Actually, that's what your #1 [It must be durable] and your #5 [It must possess value in itself] are all about, and detergent is very long lasting and of course has value in itself. If I put 5 cases of detergent under my bed it will still be just as valuable in 20 years when I pull it back out to use it.

There are other characteristics but these will do for now. Bottles of branded whiskey of a known quality are better substitutes for detergent.

Whiskey is good too and has been used as money in the past. Typically when coinage is being debased and currencies counterfeited. Whiskey has a sealed top and can be easily tested (take a taste.) Detergent bottles have a safety sealed lid and can be easily tested in your washing machine. Detergent is also even more acceptable as money to a non-drinker (no intrinsic value to him and must be accepted as a currency that can be transacted with another person who values whiskey intrinsically - like me.)

Sorry, but I really do think detergent does meet your definition of money and that's why it's being used as money in the 'hood everyday.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

This WILL probably happen here before too long. Good way to have the same effect on drug dealers, corrupt individuals hoarding cash and others. It will hurt the little people, though.