Talk:Fiat money

Title change

Given that the debate above is valid and backed by strong resources, Better change the title of the page to Fiat Currency. Particularly, a section can be dedicated to explaining the difference between fiat currency, currency, and Money. BSamanJaved (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit war over Goldberg citation

Goldberg wrote:

Monetary economics has an ideal construct of its own. It is what economists call "fiat money." This is an object that has no intrinsic value and is not convertible into anything. An implicit assumption in the definition is that no one is forced to use such money and that the money has no other legal status such as legal tender. Acceptance of such money is entirely discretionary and based exclusively on the expectation that others would accept it too, even though no one else is forced to accept it (Wallace 1980).

So user:37.39.214.247 needs to show how the current text fails to summarise those words with reasonable accuracy. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The summarization failed to capture the following points with reasonable accuracy:

1. Acceptance is discretionary: The original text emphasizes that the acceptance of fiat money is entirely discretionary. This means that people choose to use it based on the expectation that others would accept it too. The summarization only mentions trust in its value but does not highlight the discretionary nature of its acceptance. It oversimplifies the basis of its value and does not provide a complete understanding of how fiat money functions in an economy.

When fiat money is used as a medium of exchange, its value is not derived from any intrinsic worth or agreement on its value, like a commodity-backed currency such as gold, but rather from the expectation that people will be using it that it will be accepted by others in exchange for goods and services. Having it described

2. Expectation of acceptance by others: The original text explicitly mentions the expectation that others would accept fiat money too, even though no one is forced to do so. The summarization does not convey this aspect, which is crucial to understanding the basis of fiat money's value. It puts it as a side-note, which is misleading.

To improve your summarization, it should include these points to provide a more accurate and comprehensive summary of Goldberg's explanation of fiat money.

My summary is a more accurate representation of Goldberg's definition, and avoids the use of an unnecessary follow up sentence that is uncited as coming from the same source.

This makes my summary a simpler and clearer summary of Goldberg's definition. 188.236.21.168 (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Although I don't agree that commodity-backed currencies are superior (for a variety of reasons, they are markedly inferior), IMO the IP editor's explanation is convincing. Their proposed text

Fiat money generally does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value. It has value only because the individuals who use it as a unit of account – or, in the case of currency, a medium of exchange – expect that others would accept it too as a medium of exchange.¹

is clearer and less POV than the current

Fiat money generally does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value. It has value only because the individuals who use it as a unit of account – or, in the case of currency, a medium of exchange – agree on its value.¹ They trust that it will be accepted by merchants and other people.

Arguments against? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not advocating for commodity-backed currencies either.

It's just an example of a currency with intrinsic worth that I thought of off the top of my head. Intrinsic worth would be for example how gold has other purposes, like in electronics, which gives it value beyond being a medium of exchange. 188.236.36.218 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)