[Glorantha] Re: Rune Magic

[Donald R. Oddy]

In message <37b3929d3eru29mhjklunjfbide5on3vpf at 4ax.com> Stephen Tempest writes:
>donald at grove.demon.co.uk (Donald R. Oddy) writes:
>
>>Given that 90% of the population are peasants and they will be
>>involved in 90% of the transactions the economy as a whole isn't=20
>>monetary. Even in the Lunar Empire where some Heartland provinces
>>have taxes assessed in coinage they are likely to be paid in goods=20
>>at the lower levels.
>
>The following information on Anglo-Saxon England in the year 1000 or
>so might be interesting to some, since it shows just how far coinage
>had penetrated into a society that is generally considered a good
>model for certain Gloranthan cultures:
>
>England had approximately 70 licenced mints: basically, one per market
>town. (In Sartarite terms, maybe one per tribe, bearing in mind that
>Sartar is much smaller than England).  In large urban centres these
>mints would be full-time businesses: in smaller settlements, coining
>money would be a sideline of the local jeweller.
>
>There were approximately 10 million coins in circulation at any one
>time... given that England's population then was a million, that's ten
>coins per person, or 50 - 60 per household.  Even if you accept that
>wealth distribution was probably grossly uneven, it's still likely
>that your average peasant would certainly *recognise* a coin...

I'm sure he'd recognise a coin, maybe even have a few horded against
future need. But they wouldn't be used for common transactions.
That's partially because the lowest denomination of coin was just
too big. It's difficult to compare accurately but a silver penny
would be equivalent in wage terms to a modern fifty pound note,
maybe more. Today we fiddle about with coins which are nearly 
worthless but a century ago when a shilling a day was a living
wage the smallest coin was a farthing. (A quarter of a penny, 
twelve pennies to the shilling for you youngsters and foreigners).

>probably, five years out of seven he wouldn't actually use any, 
>but in the good year out of each seven he'd take his surplus 
>crops or livestock to market and sell them for cash, and on the 
>bad year he'd have to spend the hoarded money to buy food...

Now that's precisely what didn't happen. If a peasant has a good
year the chances are that all his neighbours do as well so no
one is interested in buying. Equally when there's a bad year
everyone wants to buy but there's none spare. A market economy
works where there is a reasonably efficent means of getting bulk
products from the place where there is a surplus to where there
is a shortage. This is why rents and tithes were so high, the 
landlord and church collected enough to put by for the bad years 
usually in a storeable product like grain. Then when the bad year 
came they would waive rents and tithes and if need be distribute
from their stores. At least that's how it was supposed to work
and probably largely did in Anglo-Saxon times but later on there
was more ability and incentive to generate money by selling the
surplus to nearby cities and towns. Of course if that was done
the peasants starved and the church and landlords' income dried up.

>Each coin was issued for a limited period of about two to three years
>- the official coin stamp given to licenced moneyers would vary with
>each issue.  When new coinage was issued, people would have to return
>their old coins to the mint where they would be melted down and
>re-coined; normally you would be given 8 - 9 coins back for each 10
>you handed in; in effect a 10% or 20% wealth tax.  People accepted
>this system, rather than using old coins and just weighing them,
>because the government guaranteed the purity of the silver used in the
>coins. (Moneyers using too much alloy and not enough silver in their
>coins would have their hands chopped off and nailed above the door of
>the mint).

A heck of a big disincentive to save in currency then although I
can't see many peasants having ten coins. I can see this system
working for merchants who use coins regularly but not for those
who are doing well to acquire a few coins. The coins may be out
of date but would still have some value.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/