Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard, and of course Friedman, for all their passion, lacked any understanding of numismatics. As a result, their theories wanted facts; ultimately, their predictions and prescriptions were weak. Sometimes, they failed.
Hayek's Denationalisation of Money relied on Murray Rothbard's flawed monograph, What has Government Done to our Money? which delivered one anemic academic citation on tokens. Any active coin collector could deliver hundreds of examples of competing currencies, weak and strong, successful and disastrous.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c0d9/4c0d900cddeaab142cb98bead057b6a7ff78f981" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cae7c/cae7c97f6c399683c7582668ec0796d1e63cdfa9" alt=""
Of the perhaps six million Americans who claim to "collect coins" only a couple dozen attend ANA seminars each year. Numismatists are autodidacts.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d1392/d13926de6faf8040ec6ef8dba479a82e2c7df8a1" alt=""
Other specialists have devoted their passions to stock certificates, wildcat banknotes of Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc., ancient Greek, Roman, Jewish, Turkoman, and Celtic coins, as well as American and Canadian emergency scrip of the 1930s, and, of course, the full array of U.S. government coins and notes. From the copper crosses of Katanga to Chinese cash and Siamese gambling tokens, and the rich array of Arab-Islamic issues across 1000 years on three continents, even the monetary uses of woodpecker scalps and cacao beans have been studied and reported in print and at conventions by "coin collectors." (Conventions feature judged, museum-quality exhibits touting arcane and abstruse subdisciplines.)
Hayek's Denationalisation of Money could have used some evidence. He relied on Murray Rothbard's monograph, What has Government Done to our Money? which delivered one anemic academic citation on tokens. Any active coin collector could deliver hundreds of examples of competing currencies, weak and strong, successful and disastrous.
To be fair, numismatists could benefit from an infusion of free market economics. It is true that our convention bourse floors put Wall Street to shame. However, I stopped visiting one collecting discussion board when we had a disagreement first over Morgan-Stanley's naked shorts on silver futures, then over coal mine tokens. Some writers found general support for their declamations against greed, profiteering, and the exploitation of workers. I was left the odd man out for defending speculators and industrialists. I found that ironic in a hobby that buys and sells money.
New research continues. Whitman Publishing and Krause Publications release new titles every month. Their smaller competitors such as Stanton and Money Tree are active as well. Some of these standard references, known now for 100 years, are sirens - at once lures and warnings - for the limitations of academic economics.
Also on Necessary Facts:
Some great insights here. I have to look up at least one word every time I read one of your posts : )
ReplyDeleteI agree Selgin's book is very well researched and correct in many many ways.
ReplyDeleteBut it is wrong in one very important way. He tries to disparage all aspects of state money production by looking only at the failures of just the one particular episode - the British State in the late 18th century.
That is facilitated by his failure to dig into the real and vital political interests in play in 18th century Britain. I recommend del Mar's "History of Monetary Crimes" as an antidote to Selgin. (And perhaps Pope's "Dunciad")
In a way I feel sad to write this. Seems to me Selgin is an excellent scholar. His conclusions are crippled in reality by the imperfect audience he has to write for.
Selgin and I agree strongly about Sargent and Velde - sheesh!