Of course, there is nothing wrong with money looking nice and being liked by people. But that is definitely not the main thing. In fact, if aesthetic considerations were the measure of the value of money, we would have one of the most solid currencies in the world under socialism. Of course, I am speaking of cooperatives, metallurgists, and with Fradkany, not with the later Gottwald. As many still remember, this was not true. This was because, for most people, Swiss francs and other Western coins, available only on the black market, were often little better looking.

Money simply works because it is seen as a symbol of a certain value. There must be something behind it to be trusted. That is why, in the past, coins were made from precious metals whose value was obvious and corresponded to the value of the metal.

But you know people. On the one hand, there were people who would counterfeit little precious metals from similar coins, and on the other hand, there were often not enough similar precious metals. So they switched to coins that had only fictitious value. Some were guaranteed by the state, some by national banks, and some had other values. And so it became the practice that many coins no longer even say why they should be trusted.

It has become a tradition in many places to claim that the value of money is backed by economic performance. Its value may depend on market supply and demand. It is also undeniable that there is nothing behind money. It is merely a piece of paper that we humans hold on to due to inertia. It should not be so.

Because if we focus on the fact that our currency is backed by the performance of our economy, how can we judge it? How can we judge if we take into account the assets of state-owned banks and the state? Of course. The value of such money would not even reach the value of paper or metal. And money would not symbolize wealth, but debt.

.