Talk:Hard currency

Bogus Definition?

"Hardness" or "Softness" in currency is not as subjective a matter as the article suggests. Hard currencies either are themselves commodity goods, or are Redeemable tokens for such goods. Soft currencies then come in many gradations of irredeemability: being merely "backed" by commodity reserves, by financial assets of varying quality, or by sheer legal force. Hard currencies circulate spontaneously, being the first major improvement beyond barter. Legal force/protection of varying kind is needed to make softer currencies circulate. GJaxon (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Question of fact and terminology

"Before its replacement with the Euro the Deutschmark was considered perhaps the best hard currency." I would like to see the reference to where fact came from. I believe that before the euro, Germany's currency was simply called the Mark or the German Mark (ie Japanese Yen), not by its German name of Deutchmark.

I usually heard it as Deutschmark or Mark. Rarely "German Mark" Nik42 08:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Deutschmark was by far the most common in the UK, followed by either Mark or German Mark depending on whether the speaker had been talking about Germany or not. Nicholas 12:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

is USD still regarded as an hard currency? Zarutian 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Misleading?

There is some fear that commodities quoted in USD, such as oil, may be under undue pressure to increase in price rapidly if the value of the USD plummets and is no longer seen as a safe store of value. In time however, commodity prices should stabilize as their pricing is switched to more stable currencies.

No references given for this statement which implies that the USD may not be a hard currency, while previously showing it's by far the primary reserve currency of the world and is used heavily throughout the world. This quote gives no solid justification for its claim but may show preference in the author's choice of currencies. Editing to be less presumptive. Anton.hung (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Soft Currency

The article on soft currency is untenable in its current state, as all it does is explain hard currency and then say how soft currency differs. I believe it should be merged into this article, which should either remain here (my preference), or be moved to something like Currency hardness or Hardness of currency. Nicholas 12:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Personally I think the two articles should be kept and rewritten if necessary. While related, they are different and unique enough to merit an article. For me, if there is enough to write about then having two articles are OK. Vegaswikian 17:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think its important just to define terms, rather than arbitrarily assert the appropriateness, or how hard a currency should be. Coal is categorised as soft, semi-soft, semi-coking (hard) and hard coal, might currency be considered the same.

Physically hard?

The article claimed that Hard currency can also be used to simply describe the physical banknotes and coins that are the currency., but I'd like to see a reputable source for this. Jpatokal 09:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard currency refers to currency that is back typically by gold or silver or both. This article confuses the strength or weakness of a currency relative to others as the basis for this classification. Neither the US, nor Japan have hard currencies, nor is the Euro a hard currency in this sense. The writings of Ludwig von Mises and in general the free market economists clearly define what is and is not money. Richgus 08:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are these three levels of money, sounds like what you are talking about:

• Commodity money - eg coins made of 1oz of silver, that are worth 1 oz of silver
• Representative money - eg a note that says that it's worth 1 oz of silver, according to whatever bank or government is (supposed to be) keeping the silver
• Fiat money - eg a note that says it's worth $1 'because I said so'

but I think this is different from hard/soft currency. Imagine I set up a bank in my apartment. I get 1000 oz of silver and keep it in a closet with my teeshirts. Then I print up 'Osama Bills' on my inkjet printer and sell them to my friends for $35/oz or whatever. This is a currency backed by silver, and at 1:1! but it's not really that hard... or maybe liquid is a better word. If you want to redeem an Osama bill during the week, you'll have to catch me during the evening cuz I work during the day. And if I go on vacation for a few weeks, you'll just have to wait. And if someone breaks into my apartment and steals my silver - well then everybody's out of luck. For these reasons, and because I'm not famous, my friends will have trouble converting their Osama Bills to US or other currencies. Even though it's backed by silver!

And I think that currency hardness is a bit subjective too, or at least situation-dependent. I was traveling in Indonesia once, and I was so far out there, that my US currency was worthless. Indonesian currency worked very well, though. Even when I got back to a big city, only my $20 usd bills were worth anything, and they had to be clean and crisp. $5s and $1s, they wouldn't accept, and don't even think about coins. Indonesian Rupiah notes were fine, even when dirty and so dog-eared they wouldn't lie flat. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sound money

Sound money redirects here but the article doesn't explain what the term means. It's used in the Peter Schiff article Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it's ridiculous that sound money redirects here, as the article has virtually nothing to do with the topic. How did this happen!?zadignose (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether there's a textbook economic definition of "sound money" but one possibility is that it should redirect to Hard money (policy). --Stybn (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed silly that sound money redirects here. 'Hard Currency' such as gold is not sound money if banks are allowed to have fractional reserves. Banks loaning out gold that they don't have in their vault devalues gold by creating chits redeemable for gold that carry the same value as actual metal. The number of chits exceeds the amount of gold in existence. Therefore gold is not sound at all. It is not a stable store of value. Sound money can only exist with a reserve ratio equal to 1. This can be a fiat currency, or it can be based on a metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.56.129 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

hard currency is money not likely to suddenly decrease in value. Fiat money derives it's valuation from government. $ound money can be redeemed in tangible goods or has intrinsic value itself, like a shiny metal or sparkly rock. Most hard currency is fiat, no sound money is fiat. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Paper Gold

It is absolutely wrong to say that "more chits redeemable for gold in circulation than actual gold reserved, thereby devaluing the physical metalmore chits redeemable for gold in circulation than actual gold reserved, thereby devaluing the physical metal" and again "create more chits for gold, again devaluing the gold". If anything, creating more "chits" makes the physical metal more valuable.

Also, "1/10 is a popular reserve ratio around the world that has largely supported the financial relevance of banks under national regulation" is materially false. The fractional reserve requirement is substantially below 10% in many countries: No requirement U.K., 2% Eurozone, 2.5% Switzerland, for instance.

The author doesn't seem to have a sound knowledge of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.171.39 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe 'popular' isn't the right word. Given the examples you list, yeah, 10% seems on the conservative side. What do less 'hard' currencies do? To reduce jitters, you would imagine they'd have a higher reserve ratio. What reserve ratio does Russia use? Mexico? Algeria? Malaysia? Guatemala? Vietnam?

Also, 'chit' redirects to 'voucher', which I think isn't right. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New maintenance tags

I've tagged this article to bring attention to the other issues of its content. The page makes several significant claims and suggestions yet only has two references (and they're not particularly legitimate ones at that). (NBMATT (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC))

As far as I know, Mr. and Mrs. Currency had no child that they named "Hard", so there's no BLP issue here. I removed that tag. Guy Harris (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Causes of Hard Currency

Is it just me or does the purposed list of causes for hard currency seem like a bunch of nonsense? It is literally just a list of reasons to blame developing countries for their poverty written by residents of countries that have hard currencies. It doesn't take much to put two and two together and see that the list of nations with hard currencies is more or less simply a list of the most powerful core countries with the largest economies. The only real exception is the Swiss Franc, which is backed by massive amounts of hard currency from big nations due to all the rich people from those nations dumping money into its bank accounts to dodge taxes in their home countries that the poor have to pay instead. So we can introduce another cause of hard currency, being backed by other hard currencies in large amounts.

The list is shockingly non-realistic and just is nations with hard currencies giving themselves a big pat on the back. While the elements may play a certain role, it is increasingly clear that the Yuan is becoming a hard currency in its own right, and China violates almost every single one of the proposed rules that "guarantee" hard currency success. What does it have? A. A gigantic powerful economy that can push others around B. Massive stores of hard currency. Is this seriously not obvious to anyone else? Liberalism is blindness!2601:140:8900:61D0:88A2:FAE0:DEBE:8293 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Not Hard Currency

Someone already said this...Hard Currency may be defined by economists as Strong Currency, but hard currency historically is supposed to be Coin and things like Gold and Silver or Copper, not paper money like the US dollar. 99.137.55.69 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)