Talk:Soft currency

Wholesale monetary reform introduces soft currency. Soft currency is controversial. It is also hard to explain in all its aspects. I have changed the tone of the original text.

Nothing is more "wholesale" or more "political" than wanting to pay for the welfare state with private savings instead of taxes. America is presently on a softer currency binge. We may soon experience a 25% or more decline in the dollar against harder currencies. Some special approach to this situation is called for.

I put the {{cleanup-tone}} template on this article because seems like original research. Please read WP:NOR for more information on the Wikipedia polity on original research. Cheers --malathion ^talk 07:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article still needs a lot of work. I think the title is also misleading — it's called soft currency but talks about soft currency and hard currency. --Kurando 09:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main problems is it doesn't actually explain what soft currency means, and there are no references. --Kurando 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's an interesting start on an article but no clear description of soft currency

Factual, neutrality dispute

I'm putting a disputation tag on this article because it seems to be entirely original research by an anonymous poster: as of today there is not a single citation for any of the article's points, and its contents are highly idiosyncratic to say the least. The article fails to define the term, nor does it provide any discussion of the origins of soft currency other than the rather biased "Such poorer nations are condemned to employ other nations' currencies or soft currency of their own." Condemned by whom? "Nations unable to enjoy the rewards of hard currency without the penalty of inadequate consumption:" what are those rewards, who imposes the penalties, how does hard currency lead to them? The portrayal of hard currency as somehow inherently opposed to "human and environmental rights, civilized values, and often national defense," whereas "soft currency to motivate a successful war on want" is simply bizarre and certainly non-NPOV. I'd make a stab at correcting the article myself, but lacking an extensive economics reference library, I'd be unable to adequately cite anything beyond a basic definition, which would merely exacerbate the problems herein. Collabi 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]