Elements of Monetary Science

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

Pranav wrote: We have two elementary and indisputable facts. Firstly, your own assertion -
Secondly, we have the fact that Dick does not mint any coins; the number of gold coins in the system remains unchanged.
Lending out 9X the base money supply is counterfeiting no matter what yarn you spin around it. It is increasing the base money supply through fradulent means.

You can use any fancy word you like for counterfeiting (e.g. credit creation, quantitative easing, fractional banking). Its nothing more than theft of the value of someone else's savings.

Now tell me please why i can't hang a Bank sign on the roof of my house and startup this racket myself? I'd like to take one dollar and lend out it out 9000X too.
Last edited by Neshant on 17 Dec 2011 18:34, edited 2 times in total.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote:
Pranav wrote: We have two elementary and indisputable facts. Firstly, your own assertion -
Secondly, we have the fact that Dick does not mint any coins; the number of gold coins in the system remains unchanged.
Lending out 9X the base money supply is counterfeiting no matter what yarn you spin around it. It is increasing the base money supply through fradulent means.

You can use any fancy word you like for counterfeiting (e.g. credit creation, quantitative easing, fractional banking). Its nothing more than theft of the value of someone else's savings.

Now tell me please why i can't hang a Bank sign on the roof of my house and startup this racket myself? I'd like to take one dollar and lend out it out 9000X too.
This extended example, which I had posted earlier, may help -
Pranav wrote: The 8 gold coins which Tom gave to Dick were surplus for Tom. Harry borrowed 5 of them from Dick, and used them to buy some tools for his auto repair business, from Sam. Sam, the tools dealer, doesn't need them right now (i.e. they are surplus for Sam at this point). So he goes and deposits the coins with Dick again. Dick lends 4 of those Mary to buy a sewing machine. And so on.
Note that Dick has lent out 9 gold coins (5 to Harry and 4 to Mary), which is already more than the initial deposit of 8 coins.

The number of gold coins (and thus the money supply) remains unchanged.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

sumishi wrote: Wasn't this the funda behind the Colonial paper money and Lincon's Greenbacks, managed by the government and not a central bank?
I have heard that the early American colonists did use paper money and try to regulate its supply. I'm not sure what exact mechanisms they used to inject and withdraw money.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

Pranav wrote:The 8 gold coins which Tom gave to Dick were surplus for Tom. Harry borrowed 5 of them from Dick, and used them to buy some tools for his auto repair business, from Sam. Sam, the tools dealer, doesn't need them right now (i.e. they are surplus for Sam at this point). So he goes and deposits the coins with Dick again. Dick lends 4 of those Mary to buy a sewing machine. And so on.
What you have confused yourself with is the difference between debt and money. At every stage above, you are issuing more & more IOUs and claiming it is equivalent to money (gold) aka counterfeiting. An IOU is not money, it is debt.

What happens when Tom shows up to withdraw his 8 gold coins to make jewelry? How do Dick, Harry, Sam and Mary repay their debts on the loans they took? Tom did not give a chartiable donation to the bank. He's expecting his money back.

If the above worked, Tom would just lend his own money to himself and borrow it from himself millions of times issuing IOUs to everyone in sight. Of course when just a few of those folks come to redeem those IOUs beyond 8 gold coins, they find out they've been enrolled in a pyramid scheme.

Credit creation, leveraging, quantitative easing, fractional reserve banking are all fancy jargon for counterfeiting money. There is no magic money that appears from shuffling paper.

Now why can't I hang a Bank sign on the roof of my house and lend it out 9000X what I have? Surely if it works in the above example for a bank, it can work for me too. Please answer.
Last edited by Neshant on 17 Dec 2011 19:38, edited 1 time in total.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote: At every stage above, you are issuing IOUs and claiming it is money (gold) - but its not.
Note Dick handed out actual physical gold coins to both Harry and Mary.
What happens when Tom shows up to withdraw his 8 gold coins to make jewelry?
That is easy to answer, but first we need to recognize that Dick, as a fractional reserve banker, has not increased the money supply, despite having lent out more than his initial deposit.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

What happens when Tom shows up to withdraw his 8 gold coins to make jewelry?
That is easy to answer, but first we need to recognize that Dick, as a fractional reserve banker, has not increased the money supply, despite having lent out more than his initial deposit.
He has increased the money supply because he has counterfeited money he does not have in the form of IOUs. The money he has is itself debt and he's creating debt on top of debt. As i said, you are confused about money & debt.

I want to hear this easy answer you claim to have because it seems you are ducking the question.

What happens when Tom asks for his 8 gold coins back from this fractional reserve bank named Dick and the debtors have lost those coins?
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote: He has increased the money supply because he has counterfeited money he does not have in the form of IOUs.
You forget that this is a society that uses only physical gold coins as currency. Dick handed out actual gold coins to his borrowers.

You agreed that the money supply remains unchanged if the number of gold coins remains unchanged.

You agree that the number of gold coins is indeed unchanged.

What is left is a problem of logic.

I want to hear this easy answer you claim to have because it seems you are ducking the question.

What happens when Tom asks for his 8 gold coins back from this fractional reserve bank named Dick and the debtors have lost those coins?
We have to go step by step. First things first.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

You forget that this is a society that uses only physical gold coins as currency. Dick handed out actual gold coins to his borrowers.
What has he handed to Tom? It is an IOU. What has he handed to Harry? Its an IOU. If this is a society that uses only physical gold coins as currency, why are IOUs being peddled?

What you are trying to create is a ponzi scheme where IOUs aka counterfeit money are equivalent to real money (gold).

You are confused about debt and money. IOUs are not money. IOUs are debt.

If you disagree, tell me where does the money to pay Tom come from when he wants his gold back in the midst of this ponzi scheming? i.e. Dick hands over the coins to whomever and Tom comes knocking for those coins to make a gold chain out of it. You have no answer to this because the whole ponzi scheme falls apart when IOUs that you used to increase the money supply are exposed as counterfeited money.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote: What has he handed to Tom? It is an IOU. What has he handed to Harry? Its an IOU. If this is a society that uses only physical gold coins as currency, why are IOUs being peddled?
Whenever individuals are lending and borrowing there will obviously be IOUs between the concerned parties. But IOUs are not being used as currency. Money supply, as you have already and rightly agreed, is the number of physical gold coins.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

IOUs are being used as currency because debt is being created on top of debt, not assets (gold).

Dick is peddling IOUs well beyond the gold coins he has which you are trying to portray as being equivalent to real money.

So simple question, will Tom get his 8 gold coins back when he asks for it?

Your ponzi scam is about to be exposed :)
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote:IOUs are being used as currency because debt is being created on top of debt, not assets (gold).

Dick is peddling IOUs well beyond the gold coins he has which you are trying to portray as being equivalent to real money.
In fact I am saying that IOUs are not money. Money is what you can go and buy vegetables with. We agreed that the society uses gold coins only.

When a person lends to his friend, they may put it down in writing as an IOU. The lender does not expect to be able to buy vegetables with that. That document concerns only the two of them. Or, if they trust each other, they may choose not to put anything down in writing at all. It is quite immaterial as far as the money supply is concerned, which, as you have already agreed, is the number of gold coins in the system.
So simple question, will Tom get his 8 gold coins back when he asks for it?

Your ponzi scam is about to be exposed :)
All in good time.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

Pranav wrote:In fact I am saying that IOUs are not money. Money is what you can go and buy vegetables with. We agreed that the society uses gold coins only.
But if IOUs are redeemable for money, is not an IOU equivalent to money?

You cannot say IOUs are not money and yet Tom can redeem it for money.

Can Tom redeem his IOU for money?
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote: But if IOUs are redeemable for money, is not an IOU equivalent to money?
When a person lends to his friend, they may simply have a verbal understanding. A written IOU may not exist at all. Money is actual physical gold coins, as you have already agreed.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

Pranav wrote: When a person lends to his friend, they may simply have a verbal understanding. A written IOU may not exist at all. Money is actual physical gold coins, as you have already agreed.
Can Tom redeem his IOU for his gold coins?
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote: Can Tom redeem his IOU for his gold coins?
I am saying Tom may not have an IOU at all. It could just be a verbal understanding.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

Pranav wrote:
Neshant wrote: Can Tom redeem his IOU for his gold coins?
I am saying Tom may not have an IOU at all. It could just be a verbal understanding.
I think you're trying to spin yarn here.

Can he or can he not get his gold back?
Last edited by Neshant on 18 Dec 2011 20:35, edited 1 time in total.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote:
Pranav wrote: I think you're trying to spin yarn here.

Can he or can he not get his gold back?
His friend may or may not be able to return it. It is irrelevant to the question of the money supply, which as you claim, is the number of gold coins.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

Pranav wrote: His friend may or may not be able to return it. It is irrelevant to the question of the money supply, which as you claim, is the number of gold coins.

You mean this is a system based on swindling the depositor? :rotfl:
Last edited by Neshant on 18 Dec 2011 21:06, edited 1 time in total.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5619
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by RoyG »

@ Pranav: How can it be irrelevant to the question of the supply of money? Banks are creating $ in the form of IOUs. Why can't you see this?
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote:
Pranav wrote: His friend may or may not be able to return it. It is irrelevant to the question of the money supply, which as you claim, is the number of gold coins.

You mean this is a system based on swindling the depositor? :rotfl:
It is a system which the depositor knows is not risk-free.

Even if the banker pays premiums for deposit insurance, there a limit, and the depositor knows it.

We have been through all this before.
Last edited by Pranav on 18 Dec 2011 21:36, edited 1 time in total.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

RoyG wrote:@ Pranav: How can it be irrelevant to the question of the supply of money? Banks are creating $ in the form of IOUs. Why can't you see this?
RoyG, we decided early on in this discussion that money supply means the monetary base, which is also known as M0. Bank deposits do not count. If you are using gold coins as currency, the monetary base is the number of gold coins.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

Pranav wrote: It is a system which the depositor knows is not risk-free.
The swindling of depositors is a guarantee, not an option. There is no way for Tom to get his money back. He is guaranteed to lose his money as soon as he made his deposit.

What you have created is a textbook ponzi scheme and its not fooling anyone.

When withdrawls exceed deposits, the ponzi scheme crashes. Depositors lose their life savings and IOU holders find out the IOUs are worthless.

The more IOUs build up in the system, the smaller the amount of withdrawl necessary to bring down the entire ponzi scheme. Mathematically, all ponzi schemes are unsustainable.

This isn't monetary science, its junk science. Its how to setup a ponzi scheme and a very poor one at that.

You have lost the debate! Your monetary system is a proven fraud.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote: The swindling of depositors is a guarantee, not an option. There is no way for Tom to get his money back. He is guaranteed to lose his money as soon as he made his deposit.

What you have created is a textbook ponzi scheme and its not fooling anyone.

When withdrawls exceed deposits, the ponzi scheme crashes. Depositors lose their life savings and IOU holders find out the IOUs are worthless.

The more IOUs build up in the system, the smaller the amount of withdrawl necessary to bring down the entire ponzi scheme. Mathematically, all ponzi schemes are unsustainable.

This isn't monetary science, its junk science. Its how to setup a ponzi scheme and a very poor one at that.

You have lost the debate! Your monetary system is a proven fraud.
In your excitement, you have missed the point. What we are talking about is money supply. The point is that the banker in our example did not increase the money supply. We are dealing with one misconception at a time.
Last edited by Pranav on 18 Dec 2011 22:53, edited 8 times in total.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

RoyG wrote:@ Pranav: How can it be irrelevant to the question of the supply of money? Banks are creating $ in the form of IOUs. Why can't you see this?
A point to keep in mind - total loans are in fact less than total deposits, its not as if something is being created from nothing.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Neshant »

Pranav wrote: In your excitement, you have missed the point. What we are talking about is money supply. The point is that the banker in our example did not increase the money supply. We are dealing with one misconception at a time.
Give it up, the scam has been exposed.

Its conclusively proven that you're peddling a ponzi scheme based on increasing the
money supply with phoney IOUs that end up being worthless. You're swindling lil old
grannies of their life savings.

Stop hurting granny!

Make a vow today to get gainful employment that contributes something of value to society
instead of perpetrating ponzi schemes. Granny would be proud. :)
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

Neshant wrote: Give it up, the scam has been exposed.

Its conclusively proven that you're peddling a ponzi scheme based on increasing the
money supply with phoney IOUs that end up being worthless. You're swindling lil old
grannies of their life savings.

Stop hurting granny!

Make a vow today to get gainful employment that contributes something of value to society
instead of perpetrating ponzi schemes. Granny would be proud. :)
(Sigh) You started out by correctly acknowledging that the money supply is unchanged as long as the number of gold coins is unchanged.

Then you started thumping your bible about "counterfeiting".

When it was pointed out to you that the banker is not minting coins, the number of which remains the same, you made a desperate attempt to show IOUs are currency.

When that failed, you seized upon the fact that deposits are not risk free (a point we had discussed at some length a long time back) to allege that -
Neshant wrote:[The depositor] is guaranteed to lose his money as soon as he made his deposit.
One can only say that this is lurching around like a drunken sailor.

Be that as it may, let us get back to the original point, which is that the banker did not mint coins, and the money supply remains unchanged.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

For banking elites, the most advantageous situation would be to have a single worldwide fiat currency, under their control. We have had something like this for the past few decades, with the dollar being the global reserve currency. However, this situation cannot last indefinitely, and there are other emerging economies that will soon rival the US in size.

The next best option for the elites would perhaps be the gold standard, because it does provide some influence for those who control gold mines and large reserves of gold.

The most disadvantageous situation would be having large economies on fiat currencies that are outside their control.

Many well meaning folks, deeply angry about the banking system, have unfortunately bought into false theories about the root of their troubles. They believe that the gold standard will save them, despite the fact that gold standard actually facilitated the Great Depression of 1929-33. They angrily allege that the fractional reserve system allows banks to "print money", although it does nothing of the kind.

It would not surprise the astute observer that peddlers of such false theories, sending simple-minded folks on wild goose chases, are themselves linked to banking elites.

For example, the Ludwig von Mises Institute for "Austrian Economics", with which US presidential candidate Ron Paul is associated.

Ludwig von Mises was closely associated with one of the ideological fathers of the European Union, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. He worked under Coudenhove-Kalergi's leadership on currency issues for the then proposed Union.

Coudenhove-Kalergi was on very cordial terms with banking elites. Indeed, he states in his book Pan-Europa that -
“Early in 1924 Baron Louis Rothschild telephoned to say that a friend of his, Max Warburg, had read my book and wanted to meet me. To my great astonishment Warburg immediately offered a donation of 60,000 gold marks to see the movement through its first three years. Max Warburg was a staunch supporter of Pan-Europe all his life and we remained close friends until his death in 1946. His readiness to support it (the movement) at the outset contributed decisively to its subsequent success."
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Pranav »

This thread has been dormant for a while ... let us resume the discussion from the from the post -
Pranav wrote: We saw how, in a growing economy, the money supply has to keep pace to avoid deflation.

Now comes a key question. How do you inject newly created money into the economy, in a fair and transparent way?

One principle is that the money should be deployed where the value creation is maximum. A rational metric for value creation potential is the interest that a user of the money is willing to pay. For example, in a nation short of cement, if somebody who wants to set up a cement plant expects 20% returns, he might be willing to pay 10% interest on funds borrowed.

So let us say we decide to lend the newly created money into the economy, charging as much interest as the market will bear.

Obviously, the newly created money belongs to the people as a whole. We will have to be prudent about who we lend it to. If the borrower goes bankrupt it will be a loss to the public. One way of lending money in a secure way is to buy government bonds in the bond market.

Now, in due course the borrower repays the money with interest. What should the central bank do with the principal and the interest? These amounts belong to the people as a whole. The Central Bank could either lend them out again, or retire them from circulation, depending upon how you want to adjust the money supply. The policy of the US Fed is to transfer the bulk of the interest to the US government for its use.

But if money lent out is to be returned with interest, will there be enough money in the economy to make that possible? Note that the Central Bank is continuously introducing money into circulation (with loans) and removing money from circulation (via repayments of those loans). These activities are calibrated so that the money supply keeps pace with the natural rate of growth of the economy, and price stability is maintained. So there will always be money to repay loans with interest.

An interesting feature of this system is that if the Central Bank stops making new loans all together, and goes on removing from circulation the money it receives, then the money supply will eventually dwindle to zero. Obviously, all hell will break loose well before that.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1212851
Abuse of power by a Central Bank can happen in two ways:
[1] newly created money being injected into circulation in a manner that is not fair to the people at large
[2] the money supply as a whole being manipulated to cause boom-bust cycles, which can be timed by elites controlling the central bank. Use of derivatives can amplify the wealth transfer.

The above quoted post discusses how a Central Bank can inject into circulation and withdraw money from circulation in a fair way. This addresses point [1].

As regards point [2]: The goal is to regulate the money supply so as to maintain price stability. An interesting solution, first suggested by economist Milton Freedman, is to link the value of the currency to an index comprising a large number of diverse commodities. [Incidentally, Milton Freedman's research also revealed the how the Great Depression was worsened by the monetary contraction that occurred during that period.]

Commodities for which there is a free market, with a large number of independent buyers and sellers, are the sort that could be considered for inclusion in the index. The cost of labour could also be included.

That way, we avoid the problems associated with linking the currency to a single monopolizable commodity like gold.

Such an index could be updated on a minute-by-minute basis in a completely transparent way, and there could be an algorithm which would specify how the money supply should be adjusted in response to fluctuations of the index.

The algorithm can be tuned to keep inflation at 0%, but perhaps a small positive rate (say 1%) is actually beneficial for a developing economy. That imposes a small penalty for sitting on cash.

There are other important related topics - market determination of interest rates, the "impossible trinity", and protecting against attacks by speculators. These we could discuss if there is sufficient interest.
gunjur
BRFite
Posts: 602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by gunjur »

Hello All, it is known in india that various dynasties/kingdoms issued their own coins. Now what was the conversion rate Or how was conversion rate arrived at? Or was it just that 1 gold/silver coin by kingdom X = I gold/silver coin by kingdom Y?? Also a coin issued from bigger kingdoms was it valid/legal in their feudatory kingdoms??
If such discussion has already happened, please point me there.

With regards
Gunjur
Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by Virupaksha »

Gunjur wrote:Hello All, it is known in india that various dynasties/kingdoms issued their own coins. Now what was the conversion rate Or how was conversion rate arrived at? Or was it just that 1 gold/silver coin by kingdom X = I gold/silver coin by kingdom Y?? Also a coin issued from bigger kingdoms was it valid/legal in their feudatory kingdoms??
If such discussion has already happened, please point me there.

With regards
Gunjur
http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2007/11/10 ... t-economy/

The above link has some indications.
In the Indian North West (modern Afghanistan), Greco-Bactrian coins were made (seemingly) from the “Roman gold coins, which poured into India.” To “manage” this drain of gold, Romans reduced the gold content in coins. Septimuis Severus, (193 AD-211) further debased the currency. Roman coins after Septimius Severus are rarely found in India leading to the belief that Indians just stopped accepting the debased coin – and Roman coins were melted to make payments in pure gold.
gunjur
BRFite
Posts: 602
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Elements of Monetary Science

Post by gunjur »

Apologies if already posted.
From coins to notes: Journey of India money

Certain excerpts
One of the earliest issuers of coins in the world, India has an illustrious history of coinage and currency notes. 'Punch Marked' coins were issued between the 7th-6th century BC and 1st century AD
In the South, the Vijayanagar contemporaries of the Delhi Sultanate and Mughals had currencies set an example for a standardised issue. This later provided a model for the European and English trading companies
Sher Shah Suri (1540 to 1545 AD), an Afghan, who ruled for a brief time in Delhi issued a coin of silver which was termed the Rupiya
The Anna Series :This series was introduced on 15th August, 1950 and represented the first coinage of Republic India.
The Paper Currency Act of 1861 conferred upon the Government of India the monopoly of Note Issue bringing to an end note issues of private and Presidency Banks
Post Reply