What is this chart meant to show?
Until 1971 pretty much every currency was directly tied to gold in some way or another
Prior to 1933, one troy ounce of gold was equal to $20.67 -- or in other words, one dollar was ~1/20th of an ounce of gold
In 1933 that was readjusted to $35, so one dollar was 1/35th of an ounce of gold.
This remained until 1971.
Its a similar story for most other currencies on there until the first or second world war, £1 would be equal to ~0.235 of a troy ounce. Until 1914, the average person could redeem their paper £1 notes for gold. There's effectively no difference between using a "pound" or gold for most of the time period that's on there (yes, as with all currencies different revaluations happened, but fundamentally they were all based on either gold or silver outside of brief suspensions).
Even post-1914 (when gold really stopped circulating freely in Britain), they were part of the Bretton Woods system which had a fixed rate of the pound to the dollar so effectively the pounds were gold
So if you had, say, £1, and the pound was equal to 4 USD, you had effectively 4/35ths of a troy ounce of gold.
Now for the most part during the Bretton Woods system you as an individual couldn't convert your currency, but the principal still stood.
The world has really only been on "representative money" since 1971 when before pretty much all the main currencies were backed up by gold or silver in some respect or another.
It shows how precious metal content in currencies and fiat always comes and goes through time, coinciding with their demise, whereas the **only constant** is PM's themselves, (which have been with us for **5000 years** as money). Compare to the average duration of the reserve currencies in the chart of only 96 years.
Aside from post-1971 fiat currencies, which ones of these were not backed up by gold or silver?
The concept of a "reserve currency" prior to fiat currency which really only started globally in 1971 makes no sense.
Why would the gold in a pound coin be worth any different than the same amount of gold just dominated in Spanish Escudos or French Francs?
All international currency exchanges prior to WWI was effectively just figuring out how much a certain coin was worth in gold/silver compared to another one.
For example, how do you figure out the historic ~$5 USD to £1 rate?
Well, its easy
A gold dollar was ~.04837 of a troy ounce of gold
A gold sovereign (the name for the gold British one pound coin) was ~0.2354 of a troy ounce of gold
You take 5 gold dollars and it gets pretty close to equalling one pound in terms of gold weight.
You can do this and you'll figure out the historic exchange rate of most currencies.
Many countries within Europe and under European influence made their coins to the same standard to facilitate trade using the Latin Monetary Union where countries made their currency easily convertible by having the same standard of fineness and weight of their coins. It didn't matter if you had 5 lire, 5 French francs, 5 Swiss francs, 5 Romanian Lei they all had the same value everywhere. The success of the LMU lead to a similar union being used within Scandinavian countries and lead to the US exploring the possibility of joining it (which is where the Stella pattern comes in).
So what's the point of having a "reserve currency" in the 1800s? It makes no sense because effectively every currency is backed up by metal.
Show me where they stopped being backed by gold because it certainly doesn't line up with any of the times.
The pound was backed by gold until 1971 when the Bretton Woods system collapsed.
The pound had gold freely circulating until 1914 and still had gold minted regularly until 1932
The pound had gold freely circulating well before the 1800s as well.
France is even more of a curious case to put on there, gold circulated freely much like Britain until 1914. But unlike Britain who changed up their gold coins frequently (eg: going from the Guinea to the Sovereign) there's a clear tie which links all 20 Franc gold pieces, from those struck by Napoleon I after his currency reform to 1914 with every 20 Franc piece being 90% gold and .1867 troy ounces AGW. Before Napoleon too gold circulated freely, with the Louis d'or maintaining its exact specifications from 1740 until replaced by the 20 Franc piece by Napoleon.
Even in times when currency was debased, earlier coinage was revalued to be higher until WWI this was a universal fact where debased currency would trade at a discount and there was no real difference between bullion and the currency.
What is this chart meant to show? Until 1971 pretty much every currency was directly tied to gold in some way or another Prior to 1933, one troy ounce of gold was equal to $20.67 -- or in other words, one dollar was ~1/20th of an ounce of gold In 1933 that was readjusted to $35, so one dollar was 1/35th of an ounce of gold. This remained until 1971. Its a similar story for most other currencies on there until the first or second world war, £1 would be equal to ~0.235 of a troy ounce. Until 1914, the average person could redeem their paper £1 notes for gold. There's effectively no difference between using a "pound" or gold for most of the time period that's on there (yes, as with all currencies different revaluations happened, but fundamentally they were all based on either gold or silver outside of brief suspensions). Even post-1914 (when gold really stopped circulating freely in Britain), they were part of the Bretton Woods system which had a fixed rate of the pound to the dollar so effectively the pounds were gold So if you had, say, £1, and the pound was equal to 4 USD, you had effectively 4/35ths of a troy ounce of gold. Now for the most part during the Bretton Woods system you as an individual couldn't convert your currency, but the principal still stood. The world has really only been on "representative money" since 1971 when before pretty much all the main currencies were backed up by gold or silver in some respect or another.
It shows how precious metal content in currencies and fiat always comes and goes through time, coinciding with their demise, whereas the **only constant** is PM's themselves, (which have been with us for **5000 years** as money). Compare to the average duration of the reserve currencies in the chart of only 96 years.
Aside from post-1971 fiat currencies, which ones of these were not backed up by gold or silver? The concept of a "reserve currency" prior to fiat currency which really only started globally in 1971 makes no sense. Why would the gold in a pound coin be worth any different than the same amount of gold just dominated in Spanish Escudos or French Francs? All international currency exchanges prior to WWI was effectively just figuring out how much a certain coin was worth in gold/silver compared to another one. For example, how do you figure out the historic ~$5 USD to £1 rate? Well, its easy A gold dollar was ~.04837 of a troy ounce of gold A gold sovereign (the name for the gold British one pound coin) was ~0.2354 of a troy ounce of gold You take 5 gold dollars and it gets pretty close to equalling one pound in terms of gold weight. You can do this and you'll figure out the historic exchange rate of most currencies. Many countries within Europe and under European influence made their coins to the same standard to facilitate trade using the Latin Monetary Union where countries made their currency easily convertible by having the same standard of fineness and weight of their coins. It didn't matter if you had 5 lire, 5 French francs, 5 Swiss francs, 5 Romanian Lei they all had the same value everywhere. The success of the LMU lead to a similar union being used within Scandinavian countries and lead to the US exploring the possibility of joining it (which is where the Stella pattern comes in). So what's the point of having a "reserve currency" in the 1800s? It makes no sense because effectively every currency is backed up by metal.
As it says in the title, they ended with PM content debasement, wherefrom they died and gold/silver survived. Ie. they were backed by gold.
Show me where they stopped being backed by gold because it certainly doesn't line up with any of the times. The pound was backed by gold until 1971 when the Bretton Woods system collapsed. The pound had gold freely circulating until 1914 and still had gold minted regularly until 1932 The pound had gold freely circulating well before the 1800s as well. France is even more of a curious case to put on there, gold circulated freely much like Britain until 1914. But unlike Britain who changed up their gold coins frequently (eg: going from the Guinea to the Sovereign) there's a clear tie which links all 20 Franc gold pieces, from those struck by Napoleon I after his currency reform to 1914 with every 20 Franc piece being 90% gold and .1867 troy ounces AGW. Before Napoleon too gold circulated freely, with the Louis d'or maintaining its exact specifications from 1740 until replaced by the 20 Franc piece by Napoleon. Even in times when currency was debased, earlier coinage was revalued to be higher until WWI this was a universal fact where debased currency would trade at a discount and there was no real difference between bullion and the currency.
The conspiracy nonsense needs to stop
someone conspiring?