Comment: I think it's been adequately

(See in situ)

I think it's been adequately

I think it's been adequately explained but if you have a legal tender law you want one standard, otherwise everyone has to engage in arbitrage all the time rather than proper price accounting. The rate of exchange between the two metals is fixed rather than market determined.

It helps to remember the purpose of money.

The purpose of money is to allow for cost accounting. Without money you can't easily tell if you made a profit from an activity. If you can't tell if you made a profit, you can't tell if you added to or subtracted from the wealth of society. If you made a profit then you added; what you offered was more valued to the recipient than what you received from them and vice versa.

Without money, ie barter, that exchange only tells you something about the two parties to the exchange. With money and prices, you know something about how the entire society around you values the subjects of the exchange.

Quick example, one innovation of the oil industry was gasoline. Originally kerosene was the primary product. When some refiners (was it Rockefeller?) learned to purify gasoline and create market demand for it they would bid up the price of crude, away from refiners that only sold kerosene. This benefited society, but the person selling the crude didn't need to know that. He just knew that refiner A offered more than refiner B.

In a monometallic standard all prices are relative to the base metal. The currency is the metric.

In a bimetallic standard you always have to know the price relative to both metals, or else risk making an inferior bargain. This interferes with knowing the real value of goods and services.

But with the advent of computers I think the best thing might be just not to have legal tender laws at all and let the market sort out what currency is optimal.