Fictional Verdurian Money

Corumayas · Post by **Corumayas** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:34 pm

What? No, Lincoln was president. Grant was the commanding general. That's what he's known for.

brandrinn · Post by **brandrinn** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:41 am

Grant doesn't get much credit for "winning the war" in pop psychology, I think. If you look at a civil war chess set, the Confederate "King" will be Robert E. Lee (not Jefferson Davis), but the Union "King" will be Lincoln, not Grant. Grant became supreme commander late in the war, and conducted a fairly mediocre campaign against Lee. He won the war because A) the Union had a tremendous superiority in material (the Confederates were reduced to stale corn, outdated muskets, and home-made uniforms by the end) and manpower (white southerners were outnumbered 4:1), and B) the Union generals in the west had better success and entered the Carolinas, thus surrounding Lee's army. Grant showed some promise in the early stages of the war, in Tennessee, but that prestige was mostly lost at Shiloh, and besides that kind of stuff doesn't get you an a bill.

Salmoneus · Post by **Salmoneus** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:23 pm

Pop history, don't you mean?

Anyway, fun weird theory of the day: Grant caused the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The JW, as you know, arose during the Long Depression that Grant was at best unable to stop and at worst caused - in exactly the same way that the Millerites, their millenarian predecessors, rose to prominence during the depression following th crash of 1837.

In both cases, it is thought that the trauma of the depression lead to an end-times mentality, and to fundamentalism and self-condemnation. The Long Depression in particular probably triggered the so-called 'Third Great Awakening'.

One wild theory for why America ended up so religious is the absence of powerful Jews in America. In Europe, the trauma of the 19th century depressions, and in particular the Long Depression, led to bitter recriminations against the Jews, the enemy within widely blamed for the excesses of moneylenders and speculators - hence an explosion of pogroms and persecutions, and ultimately the simmering antisemitism that exploded in the twentieth century.

In America, on the other hand, the Jews weren't the moneylenders, so they couldn't be blamed. As there were no outsiders to blame, blame fell on the insiders. This blame quickly became phrased in religious terms - America had fallen due to its own iniquity, and only an awakening of faith could save it.

*gets distracted by the breaking Depression* Oh, sorry, was I saying something?

brandrinn · Post by **brandrinn** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:35 pm

Salmoneus wrote:Jews weren't the moneylenders, so they couldn't be blamed...

Ho ho, I'm sure we could blame us some Jews if we really wanted. Wild theory, though, you're right.

I wonder as well what crazy things will come out of this recent depression (Depression?), but that deserves a new thread.

Back on topic, have there been any major economic downturns in recent Almean history, and what was the fallout? If there were none, what might it look like if Verduria had a "panic" in the near future?

dhok · Post by **dhok** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:05 pm

I don't think much would happen "on the ground", since most people are farmers. It is possible that there would be a silver shortage, but there would always be a way to fix that- all-tin coins or even barter. Without stocks, large corporations, or other pieces of an uber-capatalist society, I don't think it would happen.

Post by **zompist** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:19 pm

Interesting question... I should probably review British history in the 1700s before deciding, as that's the closest counterpart. There were certainly financial panics and speculative bubbles in early capitalism. But it's also true that the general economy was largely rural and didn't depend directly on banks and manufacturing, so perhaps depressions didn't operate as they do today.

Yiuel Raumbesrairc · Post by **Yiuel Raumbesrairc** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:37 pm

Well, a bubble-like crisis is hard to achieve in a world without much credit : the Bubble sits on dubiously large credit amounts.

I remember reading that Verduria was somewhat free of interest (or at least, its investors couldn't rely on that to make much profit) but it only concerned the Eled'e dynasty. This may prevent some of the reasons for credit bubbles to occur.

Post by **zompist** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:01 pm

The Dutch tulip mania took place in 1637, while the South Sea Bubble dates to 1720, so such things definitely happened in early capitalism.

(Curiously, the Wikipedia article on tulip mania mentions some economists' attempt to rationalize the bubble... these seem rather suspect, however, as they come from economists ideologically invested in the infallibility of markets. It reminds me of conservatives who denied till very late that the US was experiencing a housing bubble.)

vec · Post by **vec** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:15 pm

I like the word bubble for recession/depression. It sounds more fun that way.

bulbaquil · Post by **bulbaquil** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:49 pm

vecfaranti wrote: I like the word bubble for recession/depression. It sounds more fun that way.

Except that a bubble isn't a recession/depression; the recession/depression is what you get when the bubble bursts. The bubble is an economic boom based on something that ends up being unsustainable, I believe.