Talk:Money/Archive 4

Money: Concept or Thing?

Based on the source at [1], money itself is a concept, like a number, or idea; whereas the things "used as" money are tangible applications of that concept - like writing a 1 represents an idea of a number, so to anything used as money (such as a shell, or bead, coin, or paper) represents an idea of a debt - that is, a thing used to represent an unfinished exchange of wealth. Dr. Barnard explains "In other words, nobody can physically touch money, no more than they can touch a pound or an inch or a second. Money is conceptual in nature. Currency, however, the thing that represents money, can be touched. Just as a person can touch a scale to measure weight, a ruler to measure distance, or a clock to measure time." inigmatus (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No one can "physically touch" a deposit account, which is also money (according to our article and the economic texts I'm familiar with), either. You may be correct that economists use "money" for the abstract concept, but you can't separate it based on "abstract" vs. "tangible". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on my research, it appears that "things used as money" is often what is defined when money is defined. Most definitions I've seen simply describe the effects of the application of the concept of money, but not deal with the concept that is the basis for the application. In short, it appears Dr. Barnard and others may be correct in that "things used as money" is often just called "money" in our society, with the phrase "things used as" dropped from our speech over time for sake of convenience. That is often why under that definition that "money" is equal to "currency" is equal to "medium of exchange," since at that point they are all the same application of the concept of money: "a mental image of that which is used as a medium of exchange." In short, this means then that the mental image itself is the basis for what we define as (things used as) money. The separation between things used as money, and the concept of money itself, is most useful in understanding the relationship between the tangible seashell and the intangible concept that seashell represents. Barnard uses this approach to design what he calls a new "moral" monetary system based on these understandings (since if money is a concept, like language, then its application, which is currency, like speech, is to be defined as a public utility. He then reasons that abuse of a monetary system by excessive government intervention is damaging to the free flow of the wealth transactions of an economy, just as a government's excessive control of the speech of a nation is damaging to the free flow of ideas - and concludes both seriously hamper a society's growth). With his applications and other viewpoints aside, however, his theory appears very sound and on solid footing in and of itself that I felt it worthy of a notable mention in the article. Thoughts? inigmatus (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Every word is "concept" in some sense. There seems to me to be no more use in separating the concept "money" from things actually used as money than it is to separate the concept "dog" from actual instances of dogs. Yes, money is a concept. And also actual things. The separation made in the article seems to be completely pointless. It may be a confusion of essentialism vs nominalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "things used as money" and "things used as dogs." To emphasize the psychological reality of money, the article is proposed to be written as:

Money is a psychological creation; a concept; the mental image of that which is used as a medium of exchange.[1] It is represented by things used as money, known as currency.[2] Things used as money are anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts.[3]

A dog is not "represented" by "things used as dogs." Money is. The importance of understanding money as a psychological concept is foundational to the acceptance and use of "things used as money." The importance of understanding a dog as a psychological concept, however, is not as foundational to the acceptance and use of "things used as dogs." The understanding that money is a psychological concept is key to its application. The understanding that a dog is a psychological concept is not necessarily key to its application. Money is the concept, and medium of exchange is the application. The article on money should be clear in this regard. Perhaps there could be a subsection in the beginning of the article explaining this in more detail? inigmatus (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Barnard appears not to be mainstream. At least you can't find any (other) reputable economist who believes that NESARA could possibly work. Hence, although it's possible that "money" is used as the abstract concept, we'd need a reliable source to that effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll post other sources that I have that talk about money being a concept. Let me know if the new section works. inigmatus (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any "psychological reality of money" any more than there is a psychological reality of dogs, IMO. The conceptual difference between calling currency "money" or "a thing used as money" is just different wordings of no actual significance. But then, I'm a convinced nominalist. :) I think the proposed wording only confuses things by introducing metaphysical gibberish of no actual value. All he has done is exchange the meaning of the word "money" from something commonly accepted to something different and hard to understand that adds no value.

Harvey Barnard, the guy bhind the site, guy is not notable, not an economist, and his "new theory of money" is the same theory as everybody else, and his proposal is to go back to the silver standard, which isn't a unique proposal either. There is no reason to include any reference in the article, sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted other sources, others more notable. There are a lot more. As a side note, Barnard wants to go back to a silver standard, floating three currencies: silver, gold, and paper, with the paper free to not be pegged to them. A bit different than what we have today or what some have proposed, but his idea is no less a reason to discount the theory of money he presents elsewhere on his site and I thought worth noting in an article that needs sources. Let me know if the article needs more sources for this topic. inigmatus (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the other sources. One appears to be a style guide, rather than an actual comment, so I tagged it "verification failed". The others don't appear notable, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a style guide. The idea that money is a concept is universal. We don't say it as such, but it is what we mean when we talk about money, as we clarify what are things used as money. The other sources by economists and known publishers are not notable? According to what criteria? As an admin you should know. You gave me your own criteria for notability on your talk page, yet it's just one of the notability criteria for WP. inigmatus (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The points added by Inigmatus should be removed... it is abstract what sounds like some kind of political belief system nonsense... what kind I am not sure (libertarian?)... I agree with OpenFuture above..I think the proposed wording only confuses things by introducing metaphysical gibberish of no actual value. All he has done is exchange the meaning of the word "money" from something commonly accepted to something different and hard to understand that adds no value. end quote. This non information could be removed from the article now... no reason to wait. It is designed as bread crumbs that lead to some abstract politcal/economic theory (my opinion).

The proposed wording is the definition of money. Money is a concept. For example, what of a dollar bill? When it's not accepted. (now please don't read into this that I advocate doing away with the dollar, far from it!) It's the acceptance of an idea that assigns money its value. This "idea" is the concept of money. Without it, there is no definition for money, or why things used as money are accepted as "money". It's not that difficult to understand, and a section or even just a line in the article explaining this would go a long way to help answer the questions I posted. inigmatus (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Inigmatus... Based on my research, it appears that "things used as money" is often what is defined when money is defined. Most definitions I've seen simply describe the effects of the application of the concept of money, but not deal with the concept that is the basis for the application. In short, it appears Dr. Barnard and others may be correct in that "things used as money" is often just called "money" in our society, with the phrase "things used as" dropped from our speech over time for sake of convenience. That is often why under that definition that "money" is equal to "currency" is equal to "medium of exchange," since at that point they are all the same application of the concept of money: "a mental image of that which is used as a medium of exchange." In short, this means then that the mental image itself is the basis for what we define as (things used as) money. I am not at all sure what all this means... it requires lots of belief in certain believed truths... This is original research... The article is not about what an editor believes and this information seems totally bogus and should be... as said, removed. It appears to me that this information as presented is spam material promoting a book (Dr. Barnard) who also says this: Financial Support Provide a contribution to:

The NESARA Institute

23805 Greenwell Springs Rd. Greenwell Springs, Louisiana 70739 We accept checks and money orders at the above address. We also can accept contributions on line using PayPal. Come on... this looked like a spam link. skip sievert (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Belief isn't the issue. Or is it? After all aren't things used as money accepted on the shared belief of its ability to claim ownership of future wealth? Are you calling this fact, bogus? Also I am curious as to how you can label a non-profit organization a spam site, but I digress. inigmatus (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, I think the word you and Harvey has been looking for, the intangible concept that you want to call money, is what the rest of the world calls "wealth". If it isn't, and you really mean the concept of money, then I suggest you call the concept of money "the concept of money" and let the rest of the world continue to call money "money". It's easier that way. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wealth, according to Barnard, is ownership of services, or anything that labor has been expended upon. Such as an apple harvested from a tree. The apples on the tree are not wealth unless labor is expended to harvest them. inigmatus (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted apparent spam info. or ... non notable... or gibberish to context section...Concept of Money ... consensus does not go with this information. This information is sourced by a commercial website by a non notable person that appears to be disconnected from this subject in any meaningful way. The so called citations are made up apparently to fit the opinion of the book that is either being spammed ... or made to fit with original research being sought justification by an editor here. skip sievert (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several websites and different sources noted. There are multiple books and other publications on the topic. Barnard's book was simply the first one on my mind when I came across this article. inigmatus (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be but the article is not your personal blog to kick around original ideas that you are theorizing about. I suggest if serious that you try to develop the idea by writing a book or article and then seeing if these ideas become notable. Since you are admittedly the author of this thinking... and it is non notable ... it can not be in the article as is... you credit yourself here on the talk page. So... in essence you are writing about your self and then foraging around for people to back you up. skip sievert (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Skip, you have issues with assuming good faith. Dr. Barnard passed away in 2002. I had the privilage of chatting with him over the phone the month before he died. I found his work through reading a news report at worldnetdaily.com concerning his proposal and was intrigued, so I called him. I have never written anything concerning his ideas, except to inquire about it here and elsewhere. I also came across other sources written by various economists on the topic concerning the theory of money. Perhaps an article on the theory of money would be appropriate, but I am not sure there would be enough content to justify one. If anything, in an article about money, the concept of what it is, and how it's accepted, I think would be a value addition for neutral readers. As I pointed out above, the article fails to address several legitimate questions - and it was those questions being unanswered that prompted me to contribute to this article. Please don't assume bad faith again. The revert was not a revert against consensus. It was to add sourced content to the article that is relevant in answering some of those questions. If you find anything that disagrees or contradicts it, by all means post it. This is after all, wikipedia. But to call Barnard's theory, and the other sources that were posted, "original research" and "non notable," is ridiculous in light of notability criteria and the other sources posted which also serve to help answer the questions asked. Lay off on the accusatory, assumptive tone, and we'll begin to finally move this article forward in meeting its request for sourcing. inigmatus (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that no one else agrees with your edit that you keep adding to the article. That should make you pause and rethink that perhaps you may not be contributing to the article the way you seem to be thinking you are, in this instance. Editor Arthur Ruben... I believe has tagged all your sources as either improper.. non notable... not appropriate etc. That should tell you something. He is an Admin. and used to dealing with those issues... that is why the material you put on was removed. Nothing personal. It appears though now after being told multiple times by multiple editors here, that you are possibly confused in this edit, to the article, you continue to present the material over and over against consensus, and the material you are trying to introduce is not written by someone that is a well considered source. Again nothing personal. The argument or logic is one of belief in some abstract concept. As suggested you may want to read some economics article... or History of economic thought or History of money.. or Economics and note the kind of links and material used for citing sources and the quality of those sources compared to the information you have repeatedly posted. skip sievert (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking at those articles. They confirm a lot what I have already learned regarding this issue from other economic references. I agree that Barnard's source is not the best source possible for the theory of money he and others present; but it was the one off the top of my head that best fit the bill in answering the questions I raised in the article. I will still do due dilligence to make the case from other sources, more palatable to you and Arthur here, but I do ask that you reconsider the notability of the sources that were posted. inigmatus (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Comments on inigmatus's interpolated comments:

The one reference which I called a "style guide" says it's a style guide. I don't see how we can use it as a source of the concept that money is a concept. (Note, I'm not going to provide appropriate quote levels for the last few words, as I'd have to use the same quote mark to indicate different levels of quotation.)

Dr. Bernard is (and was) not considered an economist, so his opinions as to what "money" is should not be considered "gospel", but only his opinion, and only notable if actually noted in third party sources.

Some of the rest of the sources I tagged were just questionable, rather than my being sure they were inappropriate. But, unless Dr. Benard is considered a reliable source in himself, nesara.org is only a reliable sources about NESARA (the real one, and, to some extent, the fake one), not about ancillary concepts.

As for a definition of "money", probably the best one is that money is that which is accepted as "money", which is not a circular definition, as we can go on to describe the four characteristics of "money". Unlike Protomoney's assertions, money need not have a "maker's mark" or certification, and unlike inigmatus's assertions, money is an (sometimes intangible) object, not a concept. The question of whether tokens (tangible or intangible) are examples of money or exemplars of money seems moot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro

"Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts."

I am curious - this sounds like the effect of money, and not the definition of money. According to the definition above, is money money the moment its accepted as payment, or before? If before, then how can it be money if it's not accepted? Is money money if it's never used in the acceptance of a payment? It almost seems like one is saying that money = wealth = goods and services = medium of exchange. Something doesn't compute if they are all equal terms, since if they truly were are all equal terms, then why don't we merge all four articles together? How is money "anything" that is generally accepted as payment? Is money: a. the medium of exchange, b. the exchange, or c. the good/service itself? What guides that thought processes to accept "anything" as payment for goods/services? What is the universal definition for money that can be applied in all cases and at all times? Is money a good and service, or is it a concept of exchange? Is money all that is "generally" accepted, or that which is just accepted as payment? This article does not address these questions. inigmatus (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears you think you are making a fine point here. But... it seems to be lost on the other editors. That probably means that you should remove the information from the article... also as mentioned original research is a no no here.

Based on my research, it appears that "things used as money" is often what is defined when money is defined. Most definitions I've seen simply describe the effects of the application of the concept of money, but not deal with the concept that is the basis for the application. In short, it appears Dr. Barnard and others may be correct in that "things used as money" is often just called "money" in our society, with the phrase "things used as" dropped from our speech over time for sake of convenience. end quote Inigmatus

I do not know what you mean by this. I do not think that it is a good idea though to translate your interpretation of what ever this is into the article. You may want to read this History of economic thought skip sievert (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at ronpaulforpresident2008.com, I came across a presentation on money called "Money as Debt" http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/news/#vid162 and in it clearly concludes "Now that you know that money is just an idea..." at about 36m:15s into it. Arthur could then this video be included as a reference in this article - with Barnard's "theory of money" as money represents debt not wealth, as an addendum to the above reference in backing it up? inigmatus (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's, at best, political propaganda. It does show that someone notable (but not as an economist) believes the statement, but it doesn't demonstrate it to be founded in reality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Money is neither debt, nor wealth. It's a storable exchangeable measure of value. Which is exactly what the intro says. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fiat money and hyperinflation

Jonahtrainer has repeatedly added the following sentence, which has no legitimate source in any of its incarnations. I've removed it from the article, pending the addition of a reliable source:

1. It has been argued that using inflation accounting under International Accounting Standard 29 between 2005-2008 the world reserve currency, the US$, is in hyperinflation using gold as the base currency.
2. It has been argued that using inflation accounting under International Accounting Standard 29 between 2005-2008 the world reserve currency, the US$, is in hyperinflation using gold as the base currency as during periods when the gold standard was implemented.
3. It has been argued that using inflation accounting under International Accounting Standard 29 between 2005-2008 the world reserve currency, the US$, is in hyperinflation using gold as the base currency.

runtogold.com is not a book nor a reliable source, and I'm not sure the first reference is reliable, either. In any case, we would need a single (somewhat) reliable source that the dollar is considered to be in hyperinflation with respect to gold, and a reliable source that comparing dollars to gold with respect to the definition of hyperinflation is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of the First Source (International Accounting Standards): The International Accounting Standard Board is responsible for developing the International Accounting Standards which are applied by auditors and often required by publicly traded stock exchanges. The International Accounting Standards are comparable to and the leading accounting firms are attempting to converge IAS with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (USA) and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (UK).

Therefore, the International Accounting Standards including Standard 29 are reliable and authorative sources.

Reliability of the Second Source (Dollar and Gold Comparability): Under International Accounting Standard 1 the 'general purpose financial statements, to ensure comparability both with the entity's financial statements of previous periods and with the financial statements of other entities.' To satisfy Standard 1 under 1.46 there must be clear identification of the presentation currency. Standard 21 contains rules for translating from a functional currency into a presentation currency. Gold's standard as a currency, as defined by weight, makes for impeccable comparability. Names like Dollar, Pound, etc. 'were simply names for given weights of gold.' The US Dollar does not enjoy this same comparability and Adam Hamilton CPA achieves comparability by comparing 'Real' prices. Dr. Vieira, who holds four degrees from Harvard University is the premiment expert on America monetary jurisprudence and author of Pieces of Eight, has written 'What Is A Dollar?' Under Federal Law a Dollar has many different definitions as weights of metal including gold, silver, copper and nickel. However, inconsistent jurisprudential treatment of gold by the United States does not diminsh gold's status as a recognized international currency based on fineness and weight. For example, the Bank of International Settlements stated in their 78th Annual Report from 1 April 2007 - 31 March 2008 under footnote 14. Gold that "Gold is considered by the Bank to be a financial instrument. Gold is included in the balance sheet at its weight in gold (translated at the gold market price and USD exchange rate into SDR)."

Therefore, it appears clear from multiple extremely reliabile sources that gold is a recognized international currency and can function as either a presentation or a functional currency under International Accounting Standards.

Reliability of the Third Source (runtogold.com): runtogold.com is operated by Trace Mayer who holds both a degrees in accounting and law and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists. He has presented at Cambridge House Investment Conferences. The conferences are attended by about 200 pubicly traded companies and have other presenters who are recognized montary experts like Michael Berry, PhD, Doug Casey, James Turk, David Morgan, and Paul van Eeden. It appears that runtogold.com is at least a somewhat reliable source (wikipedia:reliable source examples) as a judgment of opinion for the legal application of IAS 29.

Therefore, it appears that in this context of accounting and legal confusion in monetary jurisprudence, both within the United States and internationally, and regarding the limited issue discussed by runtogold.com regarding the US$ and gold as functional and presentation currencies that in our editorial judgment the statement should be included in at least the Money and Hyperinflation pages and perhaps others as an appropriate source. However, I do not think it would be appropriate, without additional collabaration and soucing, to include the statement as definitive. Consequently, a better wording of the statement would be:

1. Using gold as the presentation currency under International Accounting Standards 1, 21 and 29 the world reserve currency, the US$, may be in hyperinflation.

Jonahtrainer (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I accept the reliability of the first source, but not the relevance. The "second" source is new, but is probably reliable, but clearly not applicable to "money". The third (previously second) source is a personal web site, so is only reliable if Trace Meyer is considered an expert, to the extent that his personal statements are reliable. I don't think that's correct. And you're combining independent statements from the sources to derive the conclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the third source (runtogold.com) is useful if relevant and can be reliable under Wikipedia rules if 'judgements of opinion when applying the law in practice' and that ' Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.'

What is your assertion for the Standards not being relevant? Gold is considered money and a currency by the Bank for International Settlements and under 31 USC 5101-5118 gold clause contracts can legally be entered into in the US with gold enforceable as Legal Tender? Why would this form of money not be applicable to money?

For example, the Kahre case involved a reported $25 million of payments with gold coins to employees. If Kahre needed audited financial statements then the Standards would need to be applied. If Kahre's presentation currency were gold then his US$ transactions would need to be translated. This would probably require a judgment opinion by his auditors based on materiality. This would then raise the issue in Mayer's statements. Because of Mayer's credentials and because his statements are in context and 'judgments of opinion when appliying the law (the Standards) in practice' therefore in this context they are reliable and relevant. For the reasons stated above I think Mayer's statement would be extremely relevant, applicable and considered at least 'a single (somewhat) reliable source' under the Wikipedia rules.

Wikipedia visitors, particularly someone in circumstances like Kahre, who are searching regarding money, accounting standards or hyperinflation then under the Wikipedia rules how would Mayer's statement be irrelevant, not applicable and unreliable?

Jonahtrainer (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming, as you say, that it's Mayer's personal web site, it's only usable as a reference if Mayer, himself, is considered an established expert in a relevant field. See WP:SPS for details. Also, it appears to be the case that IAS and runtogold.com must be combined to support the "desired" description, hence a violation of WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I accept all the IAS standards as a single source, but the references needs to be re-written so as it appears to be a single source. (And "wethepeoplefoundation.org" is an anti-reliable source; not even their courtesy copies of other websites or published information are credible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Statement:

1. Using gold as the presentation currency under International Accounting Standards 1, 21 and 29 the world reserve currency, the US$, may be in hyperinflation.

I agree that it does not appear to be a WP:SYN but I am not sure of a different apprpriate way to rewrite the three IASB Standards as they are each have their own webpage for citation. Do you have a suggestion?

I have already asserted Mayer's established expertise for the reasons cited above. Under WP:SPS additional reporting on the issue helps establish its usefulness. As Mayer asserts in his article the US$ has only barely met the bare minimium required by the Standards so it would appear that not much discussion would exist on the topic. But while not directly on point with the Standards there has been discussion by other established experts concerning the US$ and hyperinflation. For example:

An article published by the Federal Reserve of St. Louis by Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at Boston University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, said, "This concern will lead them to start dumping their holdings of U.S. Treasuries. In so doing, they’ll drive up interest rates, which will lead the Fed to print money to buy up those bonds. The consequence will be more money creation—exactly what the bond traders will have come to fear. This could lead to spiraling expectations of higher inflation, with the process eventuating in hyperinflation."

Steve Hanke a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute recently wrote in August 2008 "The accompanying chart plots the destruction of the German mark against the US dollar during the world's most well-known hyperinflation."

There is another report from the Department of Justice of the Kahre case alleging the amount of $114 million. Jonahtrainer (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're all kidding about this, aren't you? Runtogold.com (note the .com) is a business website for people in the business of selling people gold (which they store for them). That's it. The rest of it is advertising-- a newsletter created for the express purpose of sowing the idea of financial panic, so that people will trade their dollars for runtogold's gold, for the profit of Runtogold.com. Which, oddly enough, will amazingly take your soon-to-be worthless dollars from you, and give you rights to their gold! No doubt, being altruists. What? You don't believe that? Okay, then it is commercial spam, pure and simple.

Look, if the site was called EatVitamins.com and they had a newsletter about why you must take vitamins, and they sold vitamins, would that be any clearer? Perhaps we could cite them as an NPOV source for health issues, then, eh? SBHarris 03:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The advertising issue appears to be a red herring. Many educated professionals ranging from university professors, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers and scientists receive remuneration based on their expert opinions. Their remuneration does not make their opinions or work 'commercial spam.' Additionally, there are many reliable sources cited on Wikipedia that contain advertising which, thanks to Google, is often relevant to the topics they discuss. By analogy so long as the newletter writer in your example had an medical degree, spoke at reputable vitamin trade shows with other reputable vitamin experts and performed research according to current academic standards then that writer would probably qualify as an expert within the proper context. Otherwise, are you asserting that all expert opinions must be rendered for no consideration to be valid? That would be unreasonable. Jonahtrainer (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The advertising issue does appear to be a red herring. However, Mayer's credentials are still suspect, and the reference is a blog entry, which is not even necessarily Mayer's. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant point under wikipedia guidelines here is exceptional claims require exceptional sources.--Gregalton (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would the assertion be exceptional? The loss of the dollar's purchasing power could be the simple result of a commodities bull market as most hard and some soft commodities have gains, in dollars, greater than gold. Gold is different than most commodities because it is treated as a financial asset; a potential presentation currency. Jonahtrainer (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your assertion, it is that the US is experiencing hyperinflation because it has declined in value compared to gold. A non-controversial assertion is that the price of gold has gone up. Another is that the dollar has declined in value compared to gold (exactly the same as the first assertion, in different words. An exceptional assertion is that this is evidence of hyperinflation, and to make that point, you should have an exceptional source.--Gregalton (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Standards of value

A hamburger can be bought today for as little as a dollar. That compares with 25 cents 50 years ago. By this standard, and the T-shirt or gallon of milk cost standard, we've had modest inflation. Even the car-standard, if you compare performance, gives you only modest dollar inflation. In terms of how many dollars it takes to buy an accurate watch or a calculator, deflation. Now, in terms of dollars vs. non-renewable resources, as the population of the world expands (oil, land, gold) we have larger inflation. But at least a portion of the latter is due to the fact that the non-renewable resources are intrinsically more valuable in a smaller world, and not because the dollar is weaker. So what standard to use? You can't live in, eat, drink, or wear gold. And the supply of it in the world does not keep pace with the total amount of goods and services available in the world market. So it makes a poor money standard. The total amount of goods are services is a much better thing to "back" any currency, because that's what a currency is supposed to stand for. What else is it good for? SBHarris 02:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Money

Tens of thousands of words are expended without much coming to the point : Money represents the elasticity of an economy.

Some median value represents a stagnant economy; amounts above or below indicate a potentially growing or a likely receding economy, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.249.105 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're using the word "elasticity" in a totally nonstandard private way, which will take you a lot of time to define. Perhaps you think you're being clever in so-doing, but it's really not very helpful. SBHarris 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate for REWRITE

Money: A legally or socially binding conceptual contract of entitlement to wealth, void of intrinsic value, payable for all debts and taxes, and regulated in supply.

I would like to suggest a major modification or rewrite of this artricle through collective effort.

Issues:

1. It has become confusing, overly complex, and has lost the root meaning.
2. Many of these topics could be held in separate articles.
3. The section: "Types of money" contains logistical errors. Example: "Credit Money"

Credit = implies obligation (which dilutes full entitlement)

Money = implies ownership without obligation (full entitlement)

That is why in English we have two separate words.

A more accurate header would be: "The Monetization of Credits", again placing it somwhere else.

This topic is actually very simple but without proper identification of the root meaning, it starts to get confusing. --2share (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed definition leaves out most of the kinds of money that have been used throughout history, from cigarettes in prisons, to barley in Mesopotamia, to large stones on Yap island. No "contact" resides in commodity money, such as gold coin or cigarettes, and they are not devoid of intrinsic value. Another issue is that IOUs function perfectly well as money, if the credit of the issuer is good. That's how banknotes first came into being, and they have functioned as the only paper money in some periods and some countries (and still do, in some places). So again, your definition fails. The real problem is that credit itself has two meanings, only one of which implies non-immediate access. The credit in credit money need not imply this. My credit card functions in all ways like my check card as a source of money for me to buy goods with immediately-- there is no tangible difference. Again your idea fails. So far, you're not doing well. SBHarris 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree here with user SBHarris... this is a good B class article currently. It is well written and does a good job of explaining the subject in a creative overview. skip sievert (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was really surprised and disappointed to see that the flag for rewrite was taken down before I even had a chance to reply to your criticism. I've reinstalled it; I would not call this in any way collaborative. Anyways, this is what I was just about to post:

I can not attest to know much about prisons or Mesopotamia so I will address only the commodity aspects (first), followed by your credit statement (last), based on this group's descriptions at the start of this article: money.

Can we agree that "money" has ALL 4 of these characteristics in order to be called money?

• GA-general acceptance (contract)
• RD-repayment of debts (includes taxes and other state fees)
• MX-medium of exchange
• SV-store of value (which includes a unit of accounting)

barley: limited-GA, limited-RD, perishable-MX, 1-SV = limited barter exchange tool ≠ money

Very straight forward: if I don't need or want what you have to offer then it fails-GA and if I steal and eat your barley, then it isn't very useful as a SV.

cigarettes: very localized-GA, very limited-RD, perishable-MX, 1-SV = limited barter exchange tool ≠ money

In the case of the cigarettes, the tobacco company is the issuing body for the inmates commodity exchange tool. The tobacco company exchanges the wealth (tobacco) for banknotes which can be used in the broader GA and RD.

bi-metallics (treated as commodity): limited-GA, limited-RD, rare-MX, variable-SV = commodity exchange tool ≠ money

OK, I can see this one coming "v-SV". If you look at history you will notice that whenever legislative bodies de-monitize anything previously circulating under the term of money even if it people thought it had intrinsic value, it failed GA and was less effective for RD. So then what was the money? Only what was GA & RD.

bi-metallics (treated as money): full-GA, full-RD, rare-MX, fixed (by law)-SV = money

So as you can see, what is often referred to as intrinsic (in this case rare) is not the -controlling factor-. LAW determines whether it is a commodity or money, and as far as I know personally, one can not directly touch, taste, smell, see or hear the "LAW" (contract of entitlement).

SUMMARY (Commodities)

• commodities: limited and variable acceptance, physical limitations based on the real world
• money: full acceptance, payable for all public and private debts, not restricted to physical limitations but by law, which also determines store of value by symbolic unit.

IOUs (credit=obligation to repay "money"). I like the "if" in "if the credit of the issuer is good."; that it very poignant in this current credit contraction.

Banknotes (not legal tender or not good for taxes): limited-GA, limited-RD, perishable-MX, variable-SV=credit instrument ≠ money

Again if you look at the historical facts, many private issues of banknotes failed-RD in regards to the state because they were not acceptable for taxes and duties. Why? Because of the "obligations" attached to them. If you were to ask a citizen during these times which they would rather have - a private credit instrument (banknote) or a monetized legal tender coin - the answer is the legal tender coin; only it would be acceptable for BOTH "debts" & "taxes"

Banknotes (legal tender or good for taxes): full-GA, full-RD, perishable-MX, fixed (by law)-SV = money

Again as you can see, LAW determines all four as money.

In relation to debit (check) cards and credit cards the choices are:

1. debit card (Note #1: without user fees ): symbolic of legal tender banknotes

or

2. credit card: an obligation to pay later (implies non-immediate access)

"implies non-immediate access " = obligation

"there is no tangible difference" ...are you sure?

What about if you lose your income source and the credit card company wants payment and all of your high velocity accounts (cash) are on the negative side, what will you be paying with? More credit "implies non-immediate access"?

So here we have it: we are calling credit "money" and money "money"; the financial institutions during contraction call credit "obligations" and money "wealth"! A beautiful pyramid scheme I must say!

Here's a question: can you pay your taxes directly using you mortgage documents? Do the inmates really have the money or does the tobacco company? When someone dies, who will be the first one at the beneficiaries' door?

SUMMARY (Credit)

• credit: limited acceptance, intangible concept (void of intrinsic value), implying a future obligation
• money: full acceptance through legal authority, intangible concept, no obligations attached

Note #1: I realize there is no true example of a debit card without service fees unless you mantain a minimum positive balance (abstraction, concept, intangible, etc...).

--2share (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what the point of what you are saying is. If you would like to write a book on this subject and become notable for your opinions you could well do that. Wikipedia is probably not the place though for this conjecture which is abstract and maybe not really connected to the page directly in question. I will remove the tag again. Please look at Wikipedia guidelines. The article is currently B class. That means that the information is good and nearly complete. No doubt it could be tweaked a little and improved... but a overhaul of the article is not needed. skip sievert (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be easier to simply look at US dollars in Cuba vs. Cuban dollars in the US. Can you pay your taxes in one place with the other, in either place? No. Thus, technically neither one of them is money in those places, according to you. But strangely, US dollars have all the OTHER characteristics of money in Cuba, while Cuban dollars have NONE of them in the US. So, the law isn't very important. What's important is what you can get with the stuff, in the place where you are. You're merely focused on the difference between fiat money and other kinds of money. But all the other kinds are money if they function as money. Like US dollars in Cuba, which you cannot pay Cuban taxes with, but you know what? If you have a lot of them and you're in Cuba, it doesn't matter. You can find a way to do it indirectly, and exchange US dollars for anything you like. Try that with Cuban currency in the US. Will ANYBODY take it for ANY reason? Maybe for toilet purposes in the woods, if the leaves are wet. As for your long digression on credit, if I can get goods immediately on credit, that's money. What the creditors can (or can't) do to me later varies by jurisdiction. I might live in Florida. SBHarris 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SBHarris - Looking at your example of buying something in Cuba with USD, what you have just described is a USD being used as a COMMODITY, not money, because the Cuban government will still not accept it, according to what you have said.

"other kinds of money" - again, there are no other kinds of money, just money. Money IS already a fiat - it is an authorization or decree, along with the other characteristics previously mentioned - in your description it is no longer a fiat but a commodity.

"What the creditors can (or can't) do to me later varies by jurisdiction".... yes, it varies by juristiction but the variations are not the issue; what matters is that you still have an obligation to the credit company until you have paid the balance and money does not work that way. (re: entitlement)

"As for your long digression on credit" - despite what you have said here, you never answered any of the questions I posed. I think there are some important points raised.

For example, my previous question: What about if you lose your income source and the credit card company wants payment and all of your high velocity accounts (cash) are on the negative side, what will you be paying with? More credit "implies non-immediate access"?

skip sievert - This is most disturbing, this is not democratic or collaborative in any way.

The two of you have driven other contributors out of this article for whatever motivations I can only guess. As far as the facts are concerned regarding what I previously stated, I would have been happy to provide numerous references, but looking at the history of this article, I suspect that you would delete them.

I have watched the internet evolve and am concerned about how some educators and their students use Wikipedia as their first stop on a new subject. There seems to be a biased voice in this article (and projects).

Obviously, I would not be able to make any changes or contributions.

It's been a slice. --2share (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... no one is faulting your opinion. It is just that there are guidelines for an encyclopedia... it is not an essay or a blog... nor should it be opinion or conjecture pov... mostly it is based on fact... hopefully presented well and creatively http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEMOCRACY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy .. literally it is not a democracy... but it is highly collaborative within some basic guidelines of what an encyclopedia is and does. skip sievert (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Suggestions

1a. There are a few spelling/grammar errors.

• 4. Liquidity: econmy → economy
• Credit: aggregrates → aggregates
• Problems with precious metals as money (specie): jewellery → jewelry (if "jewellery is the British spelling, disregard).
• Problems with paper as money: bills,Malaysia → bills, Malaysia

• In the section Fiat Money: Those that are trade indirectly...

1b. There are many issues under this criteria.

• WP:LEAD states

“ The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. ”

• WP:MOS states:
  • "In a heading, capitalize only the first letter of the first word and the first letter of any proper nouns, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Example: “Rules and regulations”, not “Rules and Regulations”." Social Evolution of Money, Money Supply, and The Future of Money need to be corrected.
  • "Avoid the use of links in headings." This is present in all headings below Characteristics.
  • "Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, in parentheses. This tells readers they will probably find it later in the text and makes it easy for them to refer back to it."

*Under History, US, UK, and USA make initial appearances. US and UK need to be corrected as per above, USA changed to US. And both wikified. Done

*Under Private currencies, United States needs to be changed to US, as per above, and de-wikified. Done

• • (Concerning wikifying) "Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder."

• fiat money--wikified in History--redirects to fiat currency--wikilinked in Characteristics-It is a store of value.
• Barter is wikified in both the lead and Desirable features-To be anonymous.
• Gold and silver are wikified in History, Desirable features-To be anonymous, and Modern forms (gold only).
• Money supply is wikified in the lead, credit (two times), Money and economy, and Money supply.

• In the headings under Characteristics, it is unnecessary that they include numbers. It is understood from the unsourced rhyme that there are four functions, therefore there need not be numbers. Additionally, there really need not be headings at all. They should simply be bold titles like those below Desirable features.

There may be more issues, but I'll stop there for the time being.

2a-b. This is a big issue.

There are very few sources for this article... and I noticed that it's been (minimally) tagged for months. Considering its length and the number of topics covered, there should be at least three dozen references. Of the six references that are present now, not one is formatted correctly. One isn't even tagged as a reference; it's listed in text under Characteristics-It is a medium of exchange.

2c. Another big issue.

WP:NOR states that an article can have NO original research. You may know it to be true, but that does not make it encyclopedic. If you can't cite a source, delete it.

2d. Money Supply error.

The article currently states:

Second, the money supply can increase when the value of gold goes up. This kind of increase in the value of gold helps savers and creditors and is called deflation, where items for sale are less expensive in terms of gold. Deflation was the more typical situation for over a century when gold and credit money backed by gold were used as money in the US from 1792 to 1913.

This is poorly written. Yes, money supply (and thus gold supply) can go up as the value of gold goes up, but only in situations where demand for money is growing faster than supply of gold to back it. This should be clarified. Also, the causation implied by the writing is inaccurate if interpreted a certain way. By the way this reads, it appears that the value of gold going up causes money supply to increase. This is of course incorrect. The causation of increasing money supply (increased gold supply) and the value of gold going up (more demand for money than supply) are two separate issues.

Typically, deflation is a situation that results when available money supply is inadequate to accommodate demand for money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriabinop23 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Picture!.

I don't know how to edit wikipedia but the first picture on the page says Euro and that's I thinks Brazil's currency the "Real" Sorry for the abrupt edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.199.56 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

The current state of this article disqualifies it for GA. However, considering the importance of the topic, I've requested that it be the WikiProject Good Articles collaboration of the week (COW). Pending the results of that nomination this GA nomination is being put on hold. If the nomination for COW does not go through, the GA nomination will be failed unless there is significant progress in correcting the above issues. The hold period will be no more than seven days. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 06:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the lead paragraph re. currency. Resolving Counterfactual Flag.

I noticed a 'conterfactual' flag in the intro about the meaning of 'currency' as distinct from 'money', so I though I would clarify it. The intro claimed that currency is the 'dominant' form of money in America, which seemed to me to be confusing the money base with the money supply. I suppose you can argue that currency is dominant in the sense that it forms the monetary base, but I'm not sure that is what was intended. Welham66 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New reformatting of some aspects

The article is looking fine to me. L.K. seems to be making things more clear and simpler in general, at least so far. I did add back the term price system as it is important and well known and really a wheel of which the article revolves around... so as to it in the lead... yes... the whole article revolves around the idea of it... and it has been in the article as a concept for a long time.... I also added a very good reff/note source as to the further explanation of that term.

The term "price system" is sometimes used to refer to methods using commodity valuation or money accounting systems. [2] - I think there is a lot of good information in that citation valuable for the article. skip sievert (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skipsievert on this. It's important to build upon the good work that has already been done. I'm still not completely happy with the disputed sentence which has been restored - for reasons I've already gone over. The point being made is already noted in the first paragraph where money's function as a store of value is indicated. I suggest it be replaced with the following:

Money performs an important role in [price system]s as a measure of the relative values of goods and services.

In addition to the unclear reference to 'methods', the old sentence seems to be saying that it's commodity systems of valuation or money accounting systems, and therefore that commodities are not money in this sense.

One other thing for the moment. I think we need a reference for the claim that the norm was deflation in the 18th and 19th centuries after gold and silver backed currencies emerge. My understanding is that, sure there were periods of deflation but that there was still a secular inflationary trend, but much milder than during the price revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Welham66 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Too elaborate a definition, and important seems superfluous. It is just the system we use... that's all. Money performs an important role in [price system]s as a measure of the relative values of goods and services. end. And, it depends on too much conjecture, and sounds like a theory of value that way, like an Adam Smith like phrase. Money is mostly a token of debt, and an abstract concept, what ever form it takes. Right now it says The term "price system" is sometimes used to refer to methods using commodity valuation or money accounting systems. This is pretty much accurate also. Money accounting systems also measure debt. Money is in a sense redeemable debt. It probably works better as written currently. Commodity money is money also, no big or small distinction in this case, or example. People can click on the interesting information in the footnote now also [3] and that really gets into it. skip sievert (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that 'commodity valuation' is not a form of money valuation? As is, the sentence implies it's one or the other. I don't see how it's too elaborate or imposing a theory of value? BTW I've made a few minor stylistic changes to the article. Please discuss if you feel these have changed the sense. Welham66 (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All money is decreed money...fiat... whether of silver, gold, paper, barley or shells. All that is how the price system is formed... using any or all. skip sievert (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All money, of all kinds is fiat money?? Your're saying there is no distinction between commodity money and fiat money?? Thanks for your responses, but you've just lost me I'm afraid. I still don't understand the sentence I thought we were discussing and how your new comment on fiat money relates to it.Welham66 (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Money is in the eye of the beholder. There are all kinds of distinctions as to attributes. Something akin to our currently used concept of money was useful in frequent transactions of hunter-gatherer cultures, possibly for such things as bride purchase, prostitution, splitting possessions upon death, tribute, obtaining otherwise scarce objects or material, inter-tribal trade in hunting ground rights.. and acquiring handcrafted implements. All of these transactions suffer from some basic problems of barter and things became simpler with metrics of value like the shekel, which started large scale trade over distances. Then coins were made standard and another huge activity of trade started. Distinctions yes... but mostly those are formal distinctions. The mechanics are the same... and all of these things are a "price system" and use methods of commodity valuation or money accounting systems in order to exchange goods and services, and other more intangible things connected with a money system. skip sievert (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between commodity money, such as gold coins, and intrinsically worthless modern banknotes, is surely more than just a formal one. One is accepted as a means of exchange because of its intrinsic value, the other because, by fiat, the government says it’s legal tender. That’s a practical and empirical distinction, not just a ‘formal’ distinction. I’m not sure what you mean by saying ‘Money is in the eye of the beholder’. That implies money is whatever any individual thinks it is. If I think that my dog is money and offer the dog in exchange for fruit at the grocery store I’m not likely to close the deal. There has to be consensus about what is money. Welham66 (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One is accepted as a means of exchange because of its intrinsic value Not really. It is psychological. It always was. Some things had certain attributes that may or may not have been scarce. Gold has no value. Value is an abstract human concept. Economics is not a science... it is a social control system, that sometimes works well and sometimes not. Debt is an abstract concept that has been given meaning by humans in a context of society. Lots of banknotes could be seen as valuable if someone is wanting to start a small fire to roast something... because they might burn well.

Any and all money is given its significance or value from human abstraction. This is a discussion page... no there does not have to be consensus of what money is. There are plenty of sources that do that in many different ways. Its not really about us... we are just grunt workers trying to present an overview in a creative way, of the big picture. skip sievert (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant ‘consensus’ in the sense that money is used in a social context and there must be consensus about its value for it to work ‘out there’ as a means of exchange. I wasn’t saying I expect consensus on a talk page. I think what you’re getting at is that value is socially determined – gold is just any other form of matter until it is ascribed value by social and even social psychological processes. But this is getting into the ‘if a tree falls in the forest...’ sort of area. Yes, I agree that economics is not a science, at least not as science is usually conceived as replication by experiment etc. Yes, what you and I think is not important – the objective is to create a straightforward encyclopedia article. Welham66 (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said Welham66. Interesting aspect of course is that science can be applied to anything as to data and patterns... and that makes for lively debate and strange theories among the believers in various economic (money) theories. skip sievert (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Standard of deferred payment

The function of money as a “standard of deferred payment” is unusual in that many older and some newer texts distinguish this as a separate function, while many newer texts do not, implicitly or explicitly subsuming it under the other functions.

It would be helpful to this reader if this could be clarified – why do some distinguish it and others do not?

As far as I can tell, “standard of deferred payments” means “the unit that debts are denominated in”, and is distinct from, say, a “store of value” in that one can stash gold or dollar bills under your mattress (as a store of value), but a loan contract requires collecting from a different person – is this the distinction that is usually drawn by those who distinguish them?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It gets sketchy because at base a lot of the concepts are abstract concepts and therefore poetic and allusions to sociological psychological things. Smith was a moral philosopher. The unit that debts are denominated in is the closest definition that really applies to any money, to what money actually is whether gold, paper, etc. Money is always a debt token. From there it can be broken down as to so called differences, and finer points... which it looks like you did in the article. Those points are mostly abstract concepts, and maybe that is where things get iffy. skip sievert (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If something is both a unit of account, and a store of value, debts would be denominated in terms of it, and therefore it is also a "standard of deferred payments". Hence, almost all modern textbooks, refer to only three functions. Since the function "standard of deferred payments" is mostly found in older textbooks, and almost never in current textbooks, (and definitely not in the most popular ones), it would be misleading for the article to refer to four functions, unless it provides a proviso that the fourth function was mainly only distinguished in the past. LK (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both!

LK, I agree that one will tend to denominate common debts in a unit of account/store of value (i.e., these are all roles played by money), though of course not all deferred payments are made in money – a forward contract on pork bellies specifies two deferred payments, one in money, one in a commodity, and pork bellies are neither a store of value nor a unit of account (in any accounting standard I’m familiar with).

Presumably you’re happy with the current revision (as of this writing), which lists “standard of deferred payment” last, with the caveat of “occasionally”, and expands below that it was common in the past but rather less so today?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition of money, Types of money, what is money, measures of money

This article is in a poor state. It should have the same definition and types of money as what is found in standard economics texts. I'm going to rewrite the definition of money and the types of money following accepted mainstream economic convention (including copious cites). It'll be something along the following lines:

• What is Money: medium of exchange - store of value - unit of account
• Types of money: commodity money - fiat money (currency)- bank money (travellers checks, demand deposits)
• Measures of money: M1, M2 etc

Please note objections below. I'll start in a few days. LK (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea. The article has gone through a long process of collaborative editing. Right now it is pretty good in general. A standard view as you mention may not get at the finer points or issues as the article now does. This is not a textbook. It probably would not then mention more un mainstream views. Also from another article currently and your arguments concerning what coins are History of economic thought on the talk page, I am guessing that you do not appreciate some of the finer points of the history of money and its role in the development of economic thought, or the time-line of various forms of money, as to when they developed, and the components of that development. No doubt the article can be improved though. skip sievert (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I would not object to article improvements; however, we must remember that this article is a Featured Article candidate, so it cannot be in such a "poor state" as you seem to think it is, nor would any change that would move it farther away from FA status be desirable. I would agree that standardization to definitions found in economics texts would be good.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• More Comment.

I agree with Lawrencekhoo. Parts of this article do need improvement, despite some great work by various editors over the years. The article is a 'former feature article candidate', from 2004. Subsequently, it failed GA evaluation. The FA report said (inter alia) the article was confused about various forms of money. It still is. I attempted to clear up some of the confusion the other day in an edit to the opening paragraph. The GA report (inter alia) said parts of the article were not well-written. Here is an example. In the intro we find the following sentence:

The term "price system" is sometimes used to refer to methods using commodity valuation or money accounting systems.

What 'Methods'? What is this sentence doing there and what point is it supposed to convey? The opening paragraph should clearly outline what money is and distinguish between various forms of money to be elaborated upon in the main body of the article. Welham66 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't expect so much contention about getting an obviously important article in line with a standard textbook treatment. As Welham notes, this page does need to be cleaned up. I'm think I'm just going to be bold and take a stab at it. We can all work out any contentious issues later. LK (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical as to rewriting the article like a textbook. Style in presentation counts for something also. The comment above by Welham seems out of place.. quote Welham What is this sentence doing there and what point is it supposed to convey?... this is the point, In economics, a price system is any economic system that effects its distribution of goods and services with prices and employing any form of money or debt tokens. Except for possible remote and primitive communities, all modern societies use price systems to allocate resources. However, price systems are not used for all resource allocation decisions today. Is that unclear.?.. or not backed up? No... we are talking about what a money system is. This article currently maintains a lot of fine distinctions... that are articulate. Improvements are always nice... but as said lets not trash the old work here that was well done. skip sievert (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Skipsievert. First of all, as I said earlier, I think some great work has been done on this article. I'm certainly not trying to 'trash' it, as you imply. These ideas are presented as constructive suggestions. I'm trying to look at the article from the point of view of someone new to the subject, who is entitled to find in a general encyclopedia article such as this, a clear and logically sequential exposition of the key ideas.

My doubts about that sentence remain. To explain it, you quote from the 'price system' article. I think any statement in the opening paragraph should be clear enough without the need to read something else. The contents of the 'price system' article are no doubt clear to you because you have done a lot of editing of that article as well.

The meaning of the sentence in question turns on the word 'methods'. Whose 'methods' are being referred to? What 'methods' and with what objective? In the introductory section, the discussion suddenly veers off, to define, apparently, the 'price system' (which it doesn't do anyway), some obscure 'methods' of somebody or something, and doesn't relate any of this to the concept at hand: money. That's why I have a problem with that sentence, not because I don't understand what a price system is or don't understand that it is relevant to a discussion of 'money'.

On the subject of ‘price system’, there doesn't seem much about it in the article at all, given it is accorded some importance in the lead section. At the very least, if the relationship between money and price systems is introduced in the lead section, the article needs something about what prices are, the quantity theory of money, the equation of exchange(MV=PQ), the money illusion, inflation etc.) Welham66 (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just finished editing the page. I have not deleted any sections, I've merely trimmed lightly, rearranged and augmented the text, making it more compatible with standard text-book treatments of the money. Please note that as an encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to provide people with the mainstream viewpoint. Although this can be supplemented with more unorthodox views, such treatments should be kept balanced, and the reader should not walk away with an understanding of the subject that is opposed to that found in standard texts on the subject.

I have put quite a bit of effort into this edit, trying to improve it, and so would appreciate it if no one reverts it wholesale. If you have a problem with the new version, please edit the new version as you see fit, and then please start a discussion on it on the talk page. I would appreciate it if you had a read through first before doing any reverts. Thanks LK (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I put no reference on Representative money section and WP:OR on the page which I'm going to AfD soon. All its examples are either commodity or credit money. Until mainstream sources willing to acknowledge this as a separate category, this should be eliminated. Comments before I go for it? No comments on the article page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write that section, it's been there for some time. Anyway, here are some refs I found via google. If you have time, please insert as appropriate. LK (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

It strikes me that the trouble with this section is that it pulls together ideas from various theories of money without making clear which ideas come from which school of thought. This is a major problem but it could probably be fixed without completely blowing the article up. Someone (I'll do it if no one else will, but I'm probably not the most knowledgeable person here) should create a page describing Metalist or M-form currency economics. Then this page should be edited to separate the main section, which includes ideas from Metalist theory (recognized, at least across wikipedia, as "mainstream or "orthodox" monetary theory) and ideas that come from chartalism, circuitism, or other theories. The small section on "Monetarism" could probably be expanded for this latter purpose. RaulGroom (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor sources for representative money

William Stanley Jevons is not so important that the definition of money can be changed on his say so. And Walter Benn Michaels is a literary theorist, not an economist. Obviously it will be necessary to go into the money article and quote noted and real economists who describe the types of money.  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't write it. However, you realize that without a section on representative money, you're essentially arguing that there's only commodity money (gold silver, etc) and fiat money, and so, there's no essential difference between the unbacked government created money of today, and gold standard monies; they are the same type of money. LK (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Representative money refers to money that consists of a token or certificate that can be exchanged for a fixed quantity of a commodity such as gold, silver or potentially water, oil or food. This is to be distinguished from commodity money which is actually made of that real physical commodity.

Representative money is widely believed to have originated in ancient Sumeria where small baked clay tokens in the shape of sheep or goats were used to replace barter in trade. Over time, they were sealed in clay vessels which contained a certain number and had that number written on the outside - but it was only possible to verify the number of tokens inside by shaking the vessel and guessing, or by breaking it. At which point, the number written on the outside originally became subject to doubt. Apparently, however, this system was good enough to have discouraged much counterfeiting - penalties for "short-sheeping" or selling the same goat twice were quite severe, and often such activities in ancient societies were thought to offend one or more gods. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Representative:money.htm -- skip sievert (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.economicexpert.com is not a reliable source; it doesn't even identify who runs the site. Just because people choose some representative form for commodity money, does not mean it stops being based on commodity money and being a form of commodity money. Representative money is an old fashioned concept not really still in use. I have a plethora of sources for their being just three types and just trying to choose among them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe that www.economicexpert.com gets their articles from Wikipedia, so we have a problem with a feedback loop here. LK (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it still represents an historical idea that is notable. If the source is not good then change it. You will find the same or similar material regardless, as this is an historically notable idea. The concept is notable and historic. Yes, it would be possible to go through those old Google book sources and cite this idea to the max. Old fashioned? Are you saying that a context of history and thinking is old fashioned? I hope not. Is it still in use? History and allusions to historical ideas do not really get old. Though obviously this idea is thought of in modern terms also as a term. Probably makes sense to work on the article which I did a little. It can or could be improved more. skip sievert (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it deserves a sentence in a footnote with a reference. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Chapter XVI Representative Money

XVI.1

Although we now distinguish money according as it is metallic or paper money, because paper has in recent times been universally adopted as the material for representative money, yet it is well to remember that various other substances have been used for the purpose. We may pass, in fact, by gradual steps from the perfect standard coins, whose nominal value is coincident with their metallic value, to worthless bits of paper, which are yet allowed to stand for thousands, or even millions of pounds sterling. http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnMME16.html - skip sievert (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from one person who used the term in the 19th century does not prove this is a relevant category for the 21st. Have bunch of sources to fix up certain parts of article, but busy with something else right now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Commodity money

L.K. please pause before rewriting things in regard to other things in context. There is context in the rest of the article then sometimes that does not make sense. It is also best sometimes to discuss things before reverting over... things like this [8] become difficult to understand as to context of the surrounding material if they are edited without that in view... All' modern monetary systems are based on fiat money not true. This directly is in contradiction to the opening statement in the lead which says.. Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts. That would include gold coins, etc. then. By rephrasing as you did All modern monetary systems are based on fiat money – money without intrinsic value, but declared by a government to be legal tender, that is, it must be accepted as a form of payment for 'all debts, public and private'. The American government puts out the Eagle. The Canadians make the Maple leaf etc... S. Africa Krugs, etc. For those reasons could you revert your previous edit yourself L.K.? - skip sievert (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Krugs etc are not money. You cannot walk into a shop and buy a coke with a krug. There is no where in the world today where the value of the medium of exchange is based on the commodity from which the medium is made. The value of the medium of exchange is always based on the government fiat of legal tender. Hence, all modern monetary systems are based on fiat money. LK (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is tantamount to nonsense. Did I or anyone else talk about buying a coke with a Krug? You can walk into any jewelery store or pawn shop/coin shop and cash in a Krug, wherever you are, for any type of money, or they would take it in trade if you are buying something.

The opening line of the article says... Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts. Understand the word there, anything. You are arguing an obscure and pointless aspect here. Making the statement All modern monetary systems are based on fiat money does not make logical sense in context in the lead, or in context of the subject. skip sievert (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all a matter of the size of the community. If we are three people on an island and we all agree that coconuts are money, so they are. The more people on the island, the less chance that everybody will agree. The only way to make everybody in a large group or area agree, is for a nation-state to exist there, which passes a law making something a legal tender. This forces it to become a money. The definitions do not conflict: they merely refer to differing numbers of people and how they set about making an "agreement." In democracies, everybody is forced to have what only the majority deserves. In smaller groups of people, total concensus without force is possible. SBHarris 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that affirms the opening statement of the article Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts. The point of what I was saying is, the article is better with the big picture or context of phrasing as to overview especially in the lead area. Very simply L.K. you are wrong when saying There is no where in the world today where the value of the medium of exchange is based on the commodity from which the medium is made. Example = [9]

I rejiggered Sbharris's entry a little for brevity and reformatted the info in this area to make some of these distinction more clear.

Start - "Money" may be something that functions as such, by being generally accepted in payment of debts. Specific types of money may be acceptable payment for any debt by anyone. Monetary systems at the national level are based on fiat money for the most part. Fiat money is without value as a physical commodity, but derives value by being declared by a government to be legal tender, meaning, it must be accepted as a form of payment within the national boundaries of the country, for 'all debts, public and private'. By law, the refusal of a legal tender (offering) extinguishes the debt in the same way acceptance does.

Current exceptions to fiat currency would include some commodities tied into a metric with fiat currency such as gold bullion coins issued by governments. The Krugerrand has no face value; its legal tender value is the bullion value of its metal at the current market price of gold. The Krugerrand was the first bullion coin to have this kind of legal tender value. http://www.randrefinery.com/products_krugerrands.htm Retrieved July-17-09 - It was also the first gold coin to contain precisely one ounce of fine gold. The success of the Krugerrand led to many other gold-producing nations minting their own bullion coins, such as the Canadian Gold Maple Leaf in 1979, the Australian Nugget in 1981, the British Britannia coin in 1987 and the American Gold Eagle in 1986. End - skip sievert (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like "Specific types of money may be acceptable payment for any debt by anyone. " No, not if your group is larger than about 100. In a nation-state, there's bound to be somebody who won't take any given sort of money you can think of. Some guy will only take barter in goods and services because he can't eat gold. Or he'll insist on a gold value radically different from anybody else (valuing it less than others). Which makes giving him gold as a payment essentially impossible because he doesn't "believe" the market price. HENCE, the need for a fiat money if you're to have ONE type of money. SBHarris 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Skip, commodity monies, such as gold and silver coins were used as money in the past, but they are not money today. Just because gold and silver coins exist, and they have value, does not make them money. Coca-cola stock has value, and it's as easily exchangeable into cash as a gold coin, but stock certificates are not money. Anything that is not generally accepted as payment is not money. Hence, credit cards are not money, even though I often pay with them. Treasury bills are not money, even though I may discharge some debts with them. And gold coins are not money, even if some people are willing to accept them as a means of payment.
Central banks like the Federal Reserve, universally define money as consisting of fiat currency plus demand deposits, this is also the viewpoint found in economics texts. These are all reliable sources. Any claims that anything else is money as well had better have sources as authoritative as central banks, economics text books, and other reference books.
I'ld also like to remind you that continuously re-introducing a disputed controversial claim is edit warring. The onus is on the person who wants to add material to prove that his/her addition is justified.
LK (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You are an aggressive editor L.K. and really lecturing your pov about money here. Is there some part of this that troubles you? The Krugerrand has no face value; its legal tender value is the bullion value of its metal at the current market price of gold. The Krugerrand was the first bullion coin to have this kind of legal tender value. http://www.randrefinery.com/products_krugerrands.htm - Also did you read the first sentence of the article ?? Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts. In my edit I incorporated what another editor was doing. You have been removing information. That is different. If you have a problem with some aspect of editing I suggest to you in general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries: discuss the matter on the article talk page. This you did not do in your previous edit you just reverted. The previous to last one. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute.

File:3sovriegns.jpg

Three Gold Sovereigns with a Krugerrand

It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution. Making broad sweeping statement about your opinions about money in the article is not going to help things. Removing credible citations about information that other editors are putting in the article and removing information is not going to help either. How is it L.K. that your revert pictures also when editing. Did you think that picture inappropriate, and if so why? You seem more likely to revert widely than discuss or tag something for change and discussion. skip sievert (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This article, which you claim as a source supporting the contention that Krugerands are legal tender makes no such contention. The words 'legal tender' are not even in the article. Furthermore it is an opinion piece and not a reliable source.
This website which you also cite as a source is the website of the company that mints krugerrands. They are commercial and have a conflict of interest, and are explicitly an unreliable source. They claim that "Krugerrands have been legal tender worldwide since the first coin was struck", an obviously ludicrous claim.
Jimbo has spoken on this, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." (See WP:V) Either provide a reliable source that states that gold coins are legal tender, or remove the statement. Remember that legal tender is money that by law a person must accept in payment of debt. I seriously doubt that any government anywhere legally requires the acceptence of gold coins as payment of debt. If any does, please cite a source. LK (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article on legal tender states that "the Perth Mint, owned by the Western Australian Government, still produces gold and silver coins with legal tender status, the Australian Gold Nugget and Australian Silver Kookaburra. However, although having status of legal tender are almost never circulated or used in payment of debts, and mostly considered a bullion coin." I stand corrected on this issue, but I very much doubt that someone will offer a gold coin for its face value, as the bullion value of the gold will far exceed the face value of the coin. Also, note that Krugerrands, having no face value, are not legal tender in any country. LK (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First, there's a difference between legal tender which people MUST accept and "money" which people are willing to accept. So these gold peices may be both in some nations and only the latter in others.

Similarly, the error in this statement: "modern monetary systems are based on fiat money". Not true. They may be VALUATED in terms of the current value of the fiat money of some nation or other. But credit money especially is created because people give each other credit. And that credit might be extended on the basis of a nonmonetary resource, including land and other property.

That said, there's still too much unsourced or poorly sourced and basically WP:OR info in this article. I started doing some research before got sidetracked and found some interesting stuff I need to study more (like "exogenous" vs. "endogenous" money). But this article and the anarchronistic representative money issue are still on my list. It's much more important than CRA which I've sadly neglected, as the massive inflation yet to come surely will show. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the dollar inflation thing will be interesting to watch. Since we have a world wide dollar hegemony though, it will probably be the last to tank (my opinion). I did add this into the body of the article...

Although some gold coins such as the Krugerrand are considered legal tender, there is no record of their face value on either side of the coin. The rationale for this is that emphasis is laid on their direct link to the prevailing value of their fine gold content. http://www.randrefinery.com/products_krugerrands.htm Retrieved July-18-09

American Eagles are imprinted with their gold content and legal tender face value. http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/american_eagles/index.cfm?flash=no&action=American_Eagle_Gold Retrieved July-18-09 South Africa ranks among the very few countries where gold coins have been minted as negotiable currency and still remain available for general purchase http://www.samint.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86:kruger-national-park-110th-birthday-celebration-krugerrand-set&catid=21&Itemid=3 'Background and Technical Information on the Krugerrand', Retrieved July-18-09 - skip sievert (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Krugerrand is not legal tender. By definition, a coin is legal tender only if by law it must be accepted as payment for all debts, public and private. LK (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

South Africa ranks among the very few countries where gold coins have been minted as negotiable currency and still remains available for general purchase... legal tender is a term. It acts as money in S. Africa. The issues is what is money... not what is legal tender. Both issues are pointed out in the article now. There is an article link to legal tender, as you said above in your commentary here Interestingly, the article on legal tender states that "the Perth Mint, owned by the Western Australian Government, still produces gold and silver coins with legal tender status, the Australian Gold Nugget and Australian Silver Kookaburra. Also L.K. you never explained why your removed the picture above. Was there a reason or was that an accident?

Also L.K. how is it that you removed information from another gold related article?? Removing information that relates to the debate we are having from a related article seems particularly inappropriate [10], this information.. The ISO currency code of gold bullion is XAU. Is there is a reason that you removed important information from the Gold coin article? - skip sievert (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you are now wikistalking me. I removed the information because it was dubious and unreferenced, and contradicted the other articles on legal tender and money. As for the code for gold being XAU, that is just trivia and irrelevant. LK (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing pertinent information from other articles is not really appropriate. ISO 4217 includes codes not only for currencies, but also for precious metals (gold, silver, palladium and platinum; by definition expressed per one troy ounce, as compared to "1 USD") and certain other entities used in international finance, e.g. Special Drawing Rights. That is not trivia. You did not answer the question about removing the picture, also L.K. you did not answer how it was that you removed information from another gold related article?? You did not go to that talk page to explain removing information either.Removing information that relates to the discussion we are having, from a related article seems particularly inappropriate [11]. Could you now explain those actions? - skip sievert (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask the same question again, I shall repeat the same answer. I removed the information because it was dubious and unreferenced, and contradicted the other articles on legal tender and money. As for the code for gold being XAU, that is just trivia and irrelevant. As for the photo, I have no idea what you are talking about. I note that it is still inthe article. LK (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious with that statement about it being trivial? You removed the picture [12] and I put it back in [13], where you not aware of that? skip sievert (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> I don't see the problem with mentioning that any gold or silver coin is accepted as legal tender in whatever nation it is. My questions on three sentences needing clarification:

• Although some gold coins such as the Krugerrand are considered legal tender, there is no record of their face value on either side of the coin. You should specify if "some coins" or "Ks" don't record value; confusing.
• The rationale for this is that emphasis is laid on their direct link to the prevailing value of their fine gold content. How about shorter and less confusing: "This is because their value is based on the prevailing value of their fine gold content." Or whatever you said in lead paragraph which was less confusing and people DO forget what they read by the time they get halfway down the article.
• American Eagles are imprinted with their gold content and legal tender face value. Again, needs to be clearer like in the lead.
• South Africa ranks among the very few countries where gold coins have been minted as negotiable currency and still remain available for general purchase. I don't know if "negotiable currency" and "legal tender" are synonyms or there is a slightly different definition and don't have time to research, so that should be clarified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal tender is defined by a government as a law. It has nothing to do with whether or not something already functions as a money. Something can function as a money before the goverment by passing a law, makes it a legal tender. If not, the law makes something into a money (at least within the country where the law holds). But they aren't the same thing. The Krugerrand may function as money, like gold dust or cigarettes. That does not mean you can necessarily pay your taxes with it, in South Africa, without converting it to some other money. Your taxes will be in Rands. How many Rands your Krugerrand is worth will vary from day to day (that's the "negociable" part). The government (if it's like any other goverment) is surely not going to help you figure out how many Rands and do the conversion. That's YOUR problem. However, it will be happy to take the real legal tender of South Africa, which is monetized South African rand coins and bills with face values. SBHarris

Carol, to answer your questions:

• "money" is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services (you can buy stuff with it), and in repayment of debts.
• "legal tender" is something that if offered in payment for a debt, it must by law be accepted at face value, or else the debt is legally extinguished.
• "negotiable currency" is any physical object that can be exchanged for legal tender.

They are all related, but not exactly the same.

Has anyone here lived in SA? Can he/she confirm whether you can pay your private debts and/or taxes with kruggerrands? LK (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my adding this sentence to the lead: "Money originated as 'commodity money', money that obtains intrinsic value from the commodity of which it is made." LK (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote, L.K. Since you ask the same question again, I shall repeat the same answer. I removed the information because it was dubious and unreferenced, and contradicted the other articles on legal tender and money. As for the code for gold being XAU, that is just trivia and irrelevant. As for the photo, I have no idea what you are talking about. I note that it is still inthe article. End.

Quote S.S. Are you serious with that statement about it being trivial? You removed the picture [14] and I put it back in [15], where you not aware of that? End Could you answer the question L.K.? Do you think information like this is trivial L.K.? ISO 4217 includes codes not only for currencies, but also for precious metals (gold, silver, palladium and platinum; by definition expressed per one troy ounce, as compared to "1 USD") and certain other entities used in international finance, e.g. Special Drawing Rights and if so why?

Should you add this information ?? "Money originated as 'commodity money', money that obtains intrinsic value from the commodity of which it is made."

No. Because it is not factual or is at best marginally true or accurate. What is your Ref/source? A shell does not have intrinsic value except as decoration possibly. Red ochre has value for dying the skin red... but is that intrinsic? What do you mean by obtains intrinsic value from the commodity... etc. - Money is an abstract concept. All money is fiat money... and that includes commodity money also. It is money because someone is using it as such, and that is all. The terminology is just broken into finer points of difference. Modern money measures debt. Money is a debt token. The more money you have the more debt you have captured. skip sievert (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. Do you know the meaning of "fiat"? Not all money is fiat money, because the "fiat" in this sense requires governmental authority to pass a law making the money a *legal* tender. SBHarris 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So Skip, if I understand you correctly, you do not believe that there is such a thing as commodity money? You reject the concept as being a useful concept? LK (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No you do not understand me correctly. Many items have been used as commodity money such as naturally scarce precious metals, conch shells, barley, beads etc., as well as many other things that are thought of as having value. Value is a relative and abstract concept. skip sievert (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he regards gold coins as already a fiat accompli ;). SBHarris 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you answer the questions L.K. instead of changing the subject.

Could you refrain from asking me questions till then? You removed the picture in reference to gold. Then in reference to that said that you did not know what I was talking about [16] Then I put it back in [17] Were you not aware of that, or that you made that edit?

Do you think information like this is trivial L.K., as you said in your edit summary? as to the information which you removed from another article?... ISO 4217 includes codes not only for currencies, but also for precious metals (gold, silver, palladium and platinum; by definition expressed per one troy ounce, as compared to "1 USD") and certain other entities used in international finance, e.g. Special Drawing Rights What was your point in doing that - You did not go to that talk page to explain removing information either. Removing information that relates to the discussion we are having here. [18]. Could you now explain those actions? skip sievert (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the answers to those questions, please see above. The questions have been answered already, so I will not bother answering them again. LK (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

<back dent>Re my questions above, they were actually things Skipsievert (or in some cases others) might clarify, including with refs, not things I personally needed answers on. YooHoo skip :-) Coming up with more refs where gold accepted as currency helpful too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Scroll down on this one [19] - [User:Skipsievert|skip sievert] (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)