this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
31 points (100.0% liked)

memes

23750 readers
134 users here now

dank memes

Rules:

  1. All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.

  2. No unedited webcomics.

  3. Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in /c/slop

  4. Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.

  5. Follow the code of conduct.

  6. Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.

  7. Recent reposts might be removed.

  8. Tagging OC with the hexbear watermark is praxis.

  9. No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Click here for the previous one. | Click here for the next one.

Cute Russian comic. The home of the official English version is here if anyone wants to skip ahead (or support them): https://boosty.to/gabiconomics-en

Agio (from Italian aggio) is - simply put - an exchange rate... with a twist.

Historically, agio referred to a premium paid above nominal value when exchanging depreciated paper money for full-value metallic coins (such as gold or silver) of the same denomination. It reflected the difference in real value between weaker and stronger forms of currency and was especially common during periods of monetary instability or inflation.

In modern usage, agio has become a broader commercial term, referring to exchange rate differences, premiums, or discounts in financial transactions. It is used in contexts such as bond pricing and foreign currency exchange, where it denotes the difference between nominal (or face) value and market value. While the original meaning tied specifically to currency conversion has largely become historical, the term has expanded to describe value differentials more generally and is sometimes even used in place of “exchange rate” in certain contexts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Des@hexbear.net 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

you think maybe it's just because he's stuck in the ye olde gold standard era of Marx?

[–] Trying2KnowMyself@hexbear.net 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I won’t claim to be the best read, so I may be misinterpreting you, the author, Marx, or all three, but it didn’t seem like Marx believed that the commodity value of gold solely was established from the labor value of its extraction.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Actually, that is exactly what Marx believed. And he specifically used the historical example of the rapid inflation of gold coins when the Spanish brought over their hoard from conquering, colonizing and enslaving South America. One of the only times in history where gold has had that tendency.

The labor for creating gold became cheap, so more gold was available, so gold itself became cheap. So instead of being extremely wealthy like the Spanish thought they would be (which they were, just not like modern capitalist wealthy) they were forced to limit their spending. The only way for them to maintain the exchange value is through hoarding, like with diamonds. However, this creates a limit on how much exchange value they can get at any given time. The inflationary tendency is created because there is less labor value being created with any single gold piece.

For Marx, it isn't a goldbug thing, it was a demonstration that even gold currency follows the LTV. Marx would be horrified at fiat currency, as it is an abstraction on top of an abstraction. It is barely tangential to labor value.

[–] Trying2KnowMyself@hexbear.net 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 57 minutes ago)

I won’t claim to be the best read

And this certainly isn’t something I’ve read about, so I’m sure I’m misunderstanding.

the historical example of the rapid inflation of gold coins when the Spanish brought over their hoard from conquering, colonizing and enslaving South America […] The labor for creating gold became cheap

This seems like it misinterprets my understanding of “labor value” in a couple ways:

  • colonization and theft are treated as labor: if stealing gold is labor, then why is wage theft not labor? It devalues gold as a commodity, but doesn’t change the time required to extract it (unless by “extract” we mean “steal”)
  • the price someone “accepts” for their labor vs. the quantity of time necessary: theft of gold would disincentivize capital to pay for actual extraction due to the impact on commodity value, but the labor time required for extraction remains unchanged by this - a worker is not able to extract more or less gold through means other than theft in a given period just because theft has impacted what people are willing to pay
  • slavery as a reduction in labor value?

Again:

I won’t claim to be the best read

So I would like to understand how I’ve misunderstood both from a “modern” interpretation and from Marx’s perspective on this.

Marx would be horrified at fiat currency, as it is an abstraction on top of an abstraction. It is barely tangential to labor value.

Yes, paper money has no real value - it’s purely socially constructed to have it - but it seems the gold standard inflates the value of gold compared to other commodities when paper money is backed by it.