Greenbacks!

September 1, 2005 1:31 AM

The history of the dollar. Ever since they started minting "tolars" in the Czech town of Jáchymov, the dollar has been one of the most important currencies in the world. It got it’s biggest boost after the Spanish started mining silver in the Andes and minting them into “Mexican Dollars”. This influx of silver dollars had effects all around the globe, including being a major factor in the fall of the Ming dynasty. Because of the economic dominance of the U.S. and because oil is traded in Petro-dollars, the dollar is still the world’s most important currency. But could an Iranian oil bourse put an end to the dollar’s dominance? Also money slang! Iran and the dollar talked about here
posted by afu (13 comments total)

It is two in the morning, and I am sleepy. If it were noon, and I were not sleepy, I would have read this post and said "Pretty neat, afu." But right now, I am sleepy. So maybe later, afu. Maybe later.
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:26 AM on September 1, 2005

Hugo luvs the € too, not to mention it is arguable that Saddam sealed his fate by moving his UN transactions to the Euro.

fwiw, it's my pet theory that WW2 was largely fought over currency blocs, the Reichsmark über alles & the JPY Co-Prosperity Sphere vs. USD and Sterling blocs (and even relations between US and GB were getting frayed in the 30s over the UK's sterling preferences with its Dominions).

I wonder how far the rabbit hole we'll go down this century to preserve our position. Will the US people be willing to say 'fuck it' and use our military power like vs. Venezuela or other petro places?

We're now basically outspending the world combined on military outlays, and that's not even counting our truly immense military buildup over the past 30 years.

Casey Jones ain't got nothin' on us.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:35 AM on September 1, 2005

Nice post.

[this is good]
posted by loquacious at 3:00 AM on September 1, 2005

Nice post.

I second loquacious. Good stuff afu.
posted by three blind mice at 3:58 AM on September 1, 2005

it's my pet theory that WW2 was largely fought over currency blocs, the Reichsmark über alles & the JPY Co-Prosperity Sphere vs. USD and Sterling blocs (and even relations between US and GB were getting frayed in the 30s over the UK's sterling preferences with its Dominions).

Is this expounded at length anywhere do you know? Just curious, always looking for new ideas.

Will the US people be willing to say 'fuck it' and use our military power like vs. Venezuela or other petro places?

Most likely. For "petro", substitute "water". We need them. We will pay what we can afford, and even what we cannot, but if that doesn't work, we will do what is necessary.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:39 AM on September 1, 2005

Cool. Just the other day I happened to be asking myself what exactly a "dollar" is and why call it that in so many countries.
posted by Jase_B at 5:09 AM on September 1, 2005

Will the US people be willing to say 'fuck it' and use our military power like vs. Venezuela or other petro places?

Carter Doctrine

Iraq did switch to the Euro for oil payments - thus adding to the 'pile on' of people who were willing to support an invasion.

Two examples to say 'yes, a willingness to use the military'. Add in comments from the likes of Paul Harvey suggesting the use of nukes - one can understand why such a position can be problematic.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:03 AM on September 1, 2005

I read the same article about Iran about 5 years ago with the "n" changed to a "q." I've also seen it written regarding the drug trade and their cash holdings rather than oil. Neither happened yet.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:52 AM on September 1, 2005

Great post. Jachymov sounds like an interesting town. I'm a bit bemused by the photo gallery. There are five photos there: one of a hotel-type building (presumably the spa that's mentioned), then two interiors of said building, a swimming pool and a gym. They can all be sent as postcards. The photo of the interior of the gym (and possibly that of the pool) get my vote as some of the most boring postcards ever...
posted by ob at 7:49 AM on September 1, 2005

Heywood Mogroot writes "We're now basically outspending the world combined on military outlays, and that's not even counting our truly immense military buildup over the past 30 years."

Keep in mind stuff like $1B stealth bombers are of limited use in securing oil supplies. They are great if your wanting to pound a country into submission but not so much if your wanting to keep resources flowing.
posted by Mitheral at 8:00 AM on September 1, 2005

Is [ww2 and currency blocs] expounded at length anywhere do you know?

It's my own synthesis. It occured to me in reading Churchill's history and the effort the US went to monetize the UK's early WW2 debt (cashing out UK investments in the US, seizing gold from South Africa).

Colonialism itself was a form of currency conservation I guess.

Germany's rebuilding in the 1930s was done with barter since their foreign exchange position was so precarious. Hitler's aim was to recolonize Eastern Europe, which I expect would have
resulted in a Reichsmark bloc stretching to the Crimea.

I think it's safe to say Japan was constructing their own currency bloc in East Asia, too. The US had already invested much effort (cf General Smedley Butler) in creating the USD bloc in Central and South America...

heh, this would have made a good master's thesis.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:37 AM on September 1, 2005

Pretty neat, afu
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:49 PM on September 1, 2005

From the second ("influx") link:

Charles' success in the election [as Holy Roman Emperor] meant that he, and Spain, were sucked into Central European politics, which turned out to be an economic, political, and military quagmire from which Spain had neither the sense nor the courage to withdraw until it was sucked under. In financing his adventures, Charles was never able to clear the Fuggers' debt, there was never enough money to spend on Spanish domestic affairs, and the squandering of Spanish loot from the New World began even before it arrived.

That's a nice succinct explanation of why Spain's American riches ruined it. And this is (yet another) great post—thanks, afu!

Still no third part of the Balochistan article?
posted by languagehat at 3:51 PM on September 1, 2005