Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle books, especially the first, Quicksilver, has depictions of banking, commerce and wealth creation that are, um, light years more sophisticated than any of Heinlein’s finance. The third volume, System of the World, also has some very interesting passages about gold. Economics in general is vastly better in the sf of today than in golden age sf, where it ranged from nonsensical (consider Blish’s Cities in Flight books) to nonexistent.
This seems to be like saying that I can’t really own a car because there’s always the possibility that it might be stolen. While I disagree with much of what Tater said, I believe he’s correct when he points out that specie has more inherent value than fiat currency. I just don’t believe that the benefits of specie outweighs the problems.
Just to hijack this thread even further, can anyone remember the name of the book where a bunch of astronauts set up the first non-earth government by driving their space station out of orbit and off to the asteroid belt? One of the main characters is motivated by fear of returning to earth where he owes money to the mob that he is unable to repay because he had stashed it in the form of diamonds, and during his stint in orbit a company had invented a new process for making diamonds cheaply and started selling chandeliers made of gem-quality diamonds.
Heh.
I don’t remember the title but I do recall the story. I think Frederik Pohl, not Heinlein, was the author.
Nope. Niven. Spirals.
It’s actually Niven and Jerry Pournelle. It can be found in the collectionLimits, which is unfortunately out of print. It’s actually almost a novella in length and structure.
“I’m a public benefactor, I am.”
Stranger
Unfortunately out of print it may be, but I have a copy. Some good stuff there.
ducks
Yeah, besides “Spirals” there’s a collection of the “Draco Tavern” shorts, a couple of “Warlock’s Era” stories, a Hugo nominated story with Steven Barnes, and an amusing essay (“YET ANOTHER MODEST PROPOSAL: The Roentgen Standard”) written in “Man Of Steel, Woman Of Kleenex” vein about the use of radioactive waste as a monetary standard and medium.
The profession of tax collector would carry it’s own, well deserved penalty. So would certain other professions. An Arab oil shiek might still grow obscenely rich, but at least we could count on his spending it as fast as it comes in, lest it go up in a fireball. A crooked politician would have to take bribes by credit card, making it easier to convict him. A bank robber would be conspicuous, staggering up to the teller’s iwndow in his heavy lead-shielding clothing. The successful pickpocket would also stand out in a crowd. A thick lead-lined glove owuld be a dead giveaway; but without it, he could be identified by his sikly, faintly glowing hands. Society might even have to revive an ancient practice, amputating the felon’s hand as a therapeutic measure, before it kills him.
Foreign aid could be delivered by ICBM
[right]-- “YET ANOTHER MODEST PROPOSAL: The Roentgen Standard”[/right]
Stranger
Briefly, because I’m about to leave for the holiday weekend:
iamthewalrus(:3=, you may very well be right on the topic above. Stated simply, I feel that financial institutions in this society, for whatever reason (lack of oversight, philosophical inclination, plain greed), are always on the lookout for suckers. I’m not the guy who coined the phrase “predatory lending.” It’s not just the check cashing joints that are looking to fleece people. Many banks profit from “hidden fees” and such, to the detriment of their customers. That’s not the same thing as earning interest on the loans they give; it’s an entirely different way of doing business. And while you may be smart enough to read all the fine print, and keep your balance up (or choose an account with no service fee), and utilize your resources to your maximum benefit, many people out there are not so cagey. And if I know that a bank is looking to use such tactics on anyone they can take, then I assume they’ll do it to me, too–and thus I get suspicious. That may be an emotional rather than a logical argument, but so be it. I prefer to be suspicious rather than assume transparency on the part of those who are looking to make money off of me.
Oy!, thanks for the reference. I don’t recall reading that work, so I didn’t have the scene in mind. (And I read Time Enough For Love a long time ago.) It struck me as near certain that Heinlein would have hated the idea of credit spending. It’s good to see there some textual evidence for that.
Everyone, have a good Thanksgiving.
Then I guess I just don’t know what he was thinking 
Because people don’t like carrying heavy clinking change around when light, quiet paper that fits in your wallet is available?