A question of money

PeterZ wrote:I don't recall talk of actually remelting the gold coins to cure the adulterations. I do recall Rhobair praying they would never break with the Writ so far as to dilute the gold in their Marks.

We know the Church ended up actually debasing coinage at the end of the Jihad

Unless they were willing to equate black marketeering with treason to the Jihad and resort to the Punishment for violations—which he flatly refused to do—that was only going to get worse, and nothing he or the Inquisition did seemed able to halt the increasingly steep discount of the Temple’s new, printed marks in favor of gold and silver.
As of his last monthly report, the “exchange rate” was running at over sixty-to-one in favor of hard coinage, and despite the persistent (and accurate, unfortunately) rumors that the Temple’s more recently coined marks had been adulterated, the differential continued to climb.

Weber, David. At the Sign of Triumph (Safehold) (p. 129). Tom Doherty Associates. Kindle Edition.

I can't find in TFT bit I thought I'd read about Rhobair buying back debased coins, guess I was wrong on that! :/

The rumor of debased coinage was enough to devalue the gold coins relative to more trustworthy coinage. That's enough to discount Temple Marks relative to more trustworthy coins, like Charisian Marks. Which explains your question rather nicely even if the coins were NOT adulterated.

Btw, I can see unethical bankers floating that rumor of debased coins just to see the value of gold temple marks drop. They would happily pay the discounted exchange rate for actual bullion to anyone that wants to trade their Temple Marks.

Dilandu wrote:With all respect, but spying was probably also illegal in Charis. But they still have an excellent spy service, and I really doubt that Charisian spies manages to work without bribing quite a lot of peoples. And, I really doubt that Ahrmakhs have such little control over their treasury that they could not find money for bribes in Zion. After all, they quite successfully used their money to fund the secret military projects in OAR - obviously, they do NOT make those spending a matter of a public debate.

There's no problem with bribes being used as state policy even if bribery is illegal. States are permitted to do things that individuals are not other than when acting at the direction of the state. Espionage, bribery (what else is paying a source for secret information? Also, foreign aid often has a substantial bribery aspect to it.) and murder (executions) come to mind, as well as war.

Loren Pechtel wrote:

Dilandu wrote:With all respect, but spying was probably also illegal in Charis. But they still have an excellent spy service, and I really doubt that Charisian spies manages to work without bribing quite a lot of peoples. And, I really doubt that Ahrmakhs have such little control over their treasury that they could not find money for bribes in Zion. After all, they quite successfully used their money to fund the secret military projects in OAR - obviously, they do NOT make those spending a matter of a public debate.

There's no problem with bribes being used as state policy even if bribery is illegal. States are permitted to do things that individuals are not other than when acting at the direction of the state. Espionage, bribery (what else is paying a source for secret information? Also, foreign aid often has a substantial bribery aspect to it.) and murder (executions) come to mind, as well as war.

And it all depends upon how you define terms.

It's not "bribery". It's a gratuity, or a fee for services rendered, or a consulting fee, or...

The end result is the same - getting someone to do what you want by greasing their palm - but bribery tends to be a legal definition, and precisely what does constitute bribery will differ by time and place.

Charis wouldn't have a problem with paying for information. But in the stated case it would have both ethical and practical objections to bribery. Ethical ones would stem from dismay at the corruption in the Vicarate. Practical ones would center on the fact that it simply wouldn't work.

Bribery here is an attempt to influence opinion. How effective it is depends on the opinion you are trying to influence. It's usually effective because you are trying to get someone to do something they'd be inclined to do anyway, and the bribe is a push for them to go ahead and do it. Essentially, you are reinforcing an existing attitude or opinion. Changing an existing opinion is a much harder task.

It was clear at the time of OAR that Mother Church had turned against Charis. It was trying to hold off the inevitable. Who could Charis bribe in the Episcopate, and what could it get by doing so? The answers in that case are no one and nothing.

(Recall Nahrmann's comments to Pine Hollow before the unsuccessful attack on Charis by the combined navies of Chisholm, Corisande, Dohlor, Emerald, and Tarot. Mother Church intended to crush and dismember Charis. He was trying to influence how the spoils were divided afterward. He knew he couldn't get Charis itself, and was maneuvering to get what he thought was the second most valuable piece. That's the sort of thing where a bribe to push the notion might be effective. He would have had no luck trying to prevent the attack.)
______
Dennis