Talk:Representative money/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deleting this article

This unsourced article is basically WP:original research and all its examples either commodity or credit money. Until mainstream sources willing to acknowledge this as a separate category, this should be eliminated. I'll AfD it if no one else wants to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Gold standard as representative money

Skipsievert - I added a citiation request for the following statement:

The gold standard, based on paper notes that are normally freely convertible into fixed quantities of gold, was the most common form of representative money.

This statement remains unsourced yet you removed the citation request in this edit: [1] . Please do not not do this. Material which is unsourced may be challenged and removed at any time. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I will remove it now if there is a problem with that statement. The information that followed sourced it though. - skip sievert (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Very poor sources for article

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. Hmmm, this almost motivates me to correct and update the Community Reinvestment Act article. :-) But I'm trying to focus on articles related to the solution, like secession and libertarianism. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I have tried to make some major changes to this article by eliminating what looked to be as you said, a mass of original research and un sourced or reffed material. Tried to keep it simple and use this term in its historic and actual sense without speculating too much. Also left alone a section that may not deserve to be left alone much, and that is this section which I have not done any thing with really [2]. My guess is that this section is the one that now needs looking at and improving. skip sievert (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the only accurate thing that can be said is that "representative money" is a category of money described by several individuals in the late 19th century but which is not used today. See this books.google search. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so. That ignores the actual history of this idea, and the concept and origin of this idea, which is interesting and opens up a whole area of thinking about money and the history of money. Any suggestion now for what to do next with the article? Comments or ideas? skip sievert (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable sources about the topic of "representative money." A quick overview suggested what I wrote above. Study it more and see what you find. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That would not be a problem for a topic that is well known such as this [3] - It is a notable historic term at the very least. There are also lots of modern descriptions of this term all over in searches. I made a little attempt to get some more info. and ditched the revolving source, but it can sure be looked into more as to info. and sourcing. skip sievert (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt it has some historical use, but that's about it and article should reflect that point. Busy with two other projects but this is on my list, esp. in money article. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Yes, well currently it does reflect that point, but could use a lot more sourcing and also a modern discussion of the ideas and concepts... which I noticed when I was looking around, there is no shortage of. For some reason the 19th century stuff spills out first in searches... then more modern things come out. There is a lot of information as to this idea and subject. It is a conceptual idea that occurred in a time period in Sumeria... and we are still in a time period that uses the concept. skip sievert (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying it and proving it are two different things. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can not argue with logic like that. Here are a couple of things that look promising and are not antique in origin [4] and [5] - skip sievert (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>Linking to it and putting it in the article in some meaningful fashion are two different things. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, unverified material will be removed

Sources asking for verifying need to show with quotes from the sources that those sources actually discuss the term "Representative money." If not the material allegedly sourced by them will be removed soon, as well as all other unsourced material. This is basically a fringe theory no longer in use and deserves mention only as a minor historical footnote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it that you are saying this is a fringe theory when it is one of the basic components of the concept of money??, and has been historically?..., and how is it that you are tagging the reference citations? Are you against this article for some reason? You previously wanted to delete the entire article, and now it appears that you are trying to strip the article down of even its sourced material. - skip sievert (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

First, you do NOT remove tags until clearly expressed concerns are addressed. I specifically asked from quotes from those sources showing they use the term representative money. You do understand that you cannot just put anything in there that's related to money because YOU think it's representative money?? It is up to you to prove your case. I'll provide the relevant wikilink after windows stops updating....

Also note that if you don't have contemporary reliable sources to prove that "representative money" is one of the "four" types of money, then obviously it is not. Whether it is fringe, out of date, unjustly unused, or whatever are another issue. Whatever the case, no WP:Reliable Sources, no information can be presented. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books...Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article.

So my tags and requests are not unreasonable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also no WP:RS definition of representative money

Which is why a tag is needed in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. And you are being a little carried away with tagging. You made it clear over and over that you do not like this article and wanted to have it gotten rid of in a deletion process. Your reasoning does not add up as to the multiple tags. Why not edit the article positively, or rather improve it? There is no shortage of information on this subject, and you are wrong about it being a false category, which you are claiming and have claimed. How about doing some research and not coating the thing with tags, which seems pointless. Lets not confuse your opinion as to the terminology/notability of this article which is based on fact and has a long historical well of being written about. The article has lots of good sourcing in it now. Don't put fact tags on sourcing. That does not really make sense. skip sievert (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, tags are added to alert readers that material is unsourced. As it stands, the article provides no way for the user to find a third-party definition of representative money, so a tag is justified. It is apparently non-trivial to find such a definition. Even Jevons, though he has a whole book on the subject, does not appear to make a clear statement of definition. This is not a unique problem. When I was editing the Fiat money article I found it surprisingly difficult to find a definition of the term despite the many references to it print, though eventually I did. Whether or not there is a shortage of information on this topic is hard to establish until such a definition can be found. Until then the tag should stay. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have looked around and found more sourcing and ref/notes now. I do think there appears to be a negative bias for what ever reason about or against this article as to notability of this topic and its sourcing, for what ever reason though by an editor which may be unjustified. skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I failed to include the text of the footnote above so you would understand why I am asking for a direct quote showing that the sources use the phrase "representative money."

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] [Footnote 2] When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

I am questioning whether any of those sources besides Benn and Jevons actually use the phrase representative money. I have a feeling they do not and that therefore they can't be used as reference.

Also, I know finding definitions on many topics can be frustrating, but creating a credible encyclopedia is work.

Finally, I have to question any concept I've never heard of before in 40 years of reading and even writing about money, especially when I've repeatedly read that there are three types of money; and when the person promoting the idea has only two sources that even use the phrase, one outdated and one who is not an expert in the field. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories which I really think it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am questioning whether any of those sources besides Benn and Jevons actually use the phrase representative money. I have a feeling they do not and that therefore they can't be used as reference. Are you reading the sourcing I did? What sources are you referring to? The article is not about what you know or do not know in regard to your past and your writing. You are not notable in this context. The term was defined, and sourced to the definition. Fringe theories? I don't think so. In fact you are repeating that, why? How can a main category of the conception of money be a fringe category? There it is in black and white and it is explained and sourced [6]

Person promoting the idea? Who would that be? I did not start the article... who are you referring to? You seem very angry or frustrated, and I am not really sure why. The article is now sourced pretty well. The information was not hard to find, it was easy to find as to a definition. There is a wealth of information on the article. Maybe you could do some research also like was done and help to edit instead of putting some oddly place tags over it and claiming it is fringe. That is a very strange claim, which I do not get. You originally wanted to Afd the article which seemed out of context to it also as it is a real concept that has existed for the last several thousand years in one or another senses modern and ancient. skip sievert (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

According to A New Dictionary of Economics, Philip A S Taylor, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1966, representative money is 'money that is fully secured by bullion, ie not fiduciary money' [7]. This is a rather stricter definition than that given here. In particular, such a definition excludes the gold standard as that required only that money was convertible into gold, not that it was fully secured by bullion. It may well the case that multiple definitions of representative money are in use. The article should make it clear whose definition is being used. I will tag the lead as unsourced for the time being. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really and repeated tagging the article is not really making things better. If this is a contention why not start a section on definitions of representative money. Also it is possible to find any kind of conflicted information on the internet to make an example of something nearly. Is that constructive though? I made the definition clear ala [8] Jevons who is well known in the History of economic thought - [9]. I am starting to get tired of sourcing the article now, as to hoops to jump through. skip sievert (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a citation request to the definition given in the lead. Information in the lead must be well sourced. Information in any part of the article must be well sourced. If no source for the current defintion can be found, it can be replaced with the Taylor definition I provide above. If conflicting well-sourced definitions of the term can be found, then each should be included. A section on definitions may be useful. The Jevons chapter you link to does not define the term representative money. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. It is the name of that article chapter. The whole thing is defining the term [10], and making talking (writing points) about the definition and meaning > Chapter XVI Representative Money XVI.1 - The definition you are referring to looks iffy from the google book and I am wondering if it is notable? It seems to refer more to Convertability which is connected but may give a wrong or misconstrued idea as to the actual term being used here and you left that out in your edit above. This term representative money is confusing enough without a conflicted definition being thrown into it also which I see no real reference to in other searches. skip sievert (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sumeria material

Skipsievert - you added the following to the article:

Sumer developed the first economy, and developed the earliest system of written economic codes or laws, which was comparable to modern post-Keynesian economics, but with a more "anything goes" approach.

This has nothing to do with the concept of representative money. I will remove it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, and maybe you could take a look at the main economics article. History is always involved. The city states of Sumer developed a trade and market economy based originally on the commodity money of the Shekel which was a certain weight measure of barley, while the Babylonians and their city state neighbors later developed the earliest system of economics using a metric of various commodities, that was fixed in a legal code. Kramer, History Begins at Sumer, pp. 52–55. The early law codes from Sumer could be considered the first (written) economic formula, and had many attributes still in use in the current price system today... such as codified amounts of money for business deals (interest rates), fines in money for 'wrong doing', inheritance rules, laws concerning how private property is to be taxed or divided, etc.Charles F. Horne, Ph.D. (1915). "The Code of Hammurabi : Introduction". Yale University. Retrieved September 14, 2007.http://history-world.org/reforms_of_urukagina.htm For a summary of the laws, see Babylonian law and Ancient economic thought.. Ever heard of the Shekel? The Barley was representative money in a commodity metric to gold and silver, and copper and lead etc as to measure.

You also may be interested in reading this link [11], which explains what representative money is. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of this statement to the concept of representative money is not explained, either here or in the article itself. I will remove it in due course. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[12] Please refer to this, page 11. skip sievert (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Page 11, as numbered by the Google cache, or page 11 as numbered in the original pdf? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It says Pdf in the link. This part of the article in the link: 4. Attributes of Coinage - skip sievert (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No connection is made in the Mundell article. Note that articles may not contain synthesis of published material. I will remove this material in due course - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You will remove what material? What do you mean no connection is made? What are you referring to now? Synthesis of published material? I wouldn't bother doing that. I am just sourcing.

From the Article quote... 4. Attributes of Coinage

Earlier classifications in the history of money made of the useful distinction between money of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” worth. It is true that the terms are not strictly appropriate. Worth and value do not reside in an inanimate object. Like beauty, they reside in the eye of the beholder. Value is conferred on a commodity by the esteem in which it is held as measured by outside valuations that relate demand to supply, i.e., by scarcity. Inaccessible gold has no worth whatsoever. That said, the distinction was meant to get at an important truth. Commodity money has an exchange value because if not used as money it can be used as a commodity. But once money has been widely accepted for that use, it may take on a value as money that is independent of the value of the commodity of which it is composed. A premium could develop on the money commodity because it is more “liquid” than other commodities. At the extreme, what can be called token money may have no commodity value whatsoever. It may also be called “representative money” in the sense that, say, a piece of paper might “represent” or be a claim on the commodity. Gold or silver certificates, for example, which are claims on precise amounts of gold or silver, could be called representative money. In his Treatise on Money (1930:7), Keynes distinguished between “commodity money”and “representative money,” dividing the latter into “fiat money” and “managed money.” These terms are useful for some purposes but they fail to recognize that the distinction between commodity money and token money is a continuum. At one end lies commodity money, at the other lies token money. But what about the cases in between? Pure commodity money has the same value whether used as money or a commodity. One could say that the “fall-back” value of commodity money, measured as a proportion of the value, is 1 or 100 percent. At the other extreme, token money is virtually worthless as a commodity. Its fall-back value is virtually zero. In between the two limits of commodity money and paper (or bank or electronic) money, there is a spectrum ranging between 1 and zero - End area in ref/note --- That is just sourcing material. skip sievert (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Compliance with wikipedia policies

I think Skip needs to read and carefully consider Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I'm right and you are wrong is just not an argument that holds a lot of weight here and remedies may be sought. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

When did I say I am right and you are wrong? Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Please stick with article content. Is there an issue in that regard? If you have a problem and it is important think about some dispute resolution ideas according to the regular channels, but please do not make general personal remarks here or quote me falsely. Do not say that I said something when I did not. I have edited this article constructively with lots of new information and new ref/citations. I have also edited I think constructively with Crosbiesmith who has been challenging creatively my recent work here, as I have their recent work, and that has improved the quality of the article, which is now written pretty well and sourced well in my opinion. In other words the article has improved from a vigorous discussion and debate and attempts at improving it, which seems good. skip sievert (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem remains that the lead definition is not well sourced and should be tagged as such. Adding material has not addressed this problem. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't think a definition/description by Keynes is enough or one by William Stanley Jevons? Mmm. How come? Two big names in the history of economic thought, not to mention this...[13]...? How can that be? skip sievert (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I failed to notice Keynes. I am not denying historically a few people have used it but it is not one of major types today. Have several sources specifying what is and on my list of things to do to add where appropriate in another article. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Keynes quote and the need for a well-sourced definition

In his Treatise on Money Keynes defined fiat money as a type of representative money:

Fiat Money is Representative (or token) Money (i. e. something the intrinsic value of the material substance of which is divorced from its monetary face value) now generally made of paper except in the case of small denominations which is created and issued by the State, but is not convertible by law into anything other than itself, and has no fixed value in terms of an objective standard.

Keynes understands the term 'representative money' to include inconvertible fiat money. This contradicts the definition of representative money given in the lead of the article. There is a need for a source for the definition given in the article. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Types of money. [14] .. It represents money. Representative money. All money is fiat money. Inconvertable? Economics is not a science. It deals with abstract concepts. The term sources itself and is a description. Barley was representative money. The Shekel. Its that simple. skip sievert (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. [15] doesn't mention "representative money." I made changes, having found a quote referring to the old fashioned use of the term. And I properly described what Mundell has to say, which does not disagree with the idea it's a very specific term and not widely used. And of course he criticizes Keynes use of the term.

I also removed all the unsourced WP:OR which is not directly relevant to the term "representative money." If it's brought back without clear sourcing tying any information directly to the term "representative money," I'll bring it to the relevant noticeboard. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on finding a source! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There is no shortage of information on this. skip sievert (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I reedited the info. Moved the new reference to another area, and divided it because of length now. The lead area is not a good area to get so contentious about on the talk page here. I object to the taunting going on with an editor threatening, and misquoting me and also seemingly with strident attitude concerning the editing. That is getting old. The idea is to edit info... source it, not make such a big deal of it. Don't cherry pick sentiment And I properly described what Mundell has to say, which does not disagree with the idea it's a very specific term and not widely used. And of course he criticizes Keynes use of the term. Of course he criticiszes Keynes?... So? Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Please desist in the confrontation.A reminder that just a bit ago you accused the entire article of being See Wikipedia:Fringe theories which I really think it is. <-End quote another editor, so just take it easy please, calm down. skip sievert (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You rewrote it to push your agenda that an old fashioned phrase has current importance and relevance. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Info on definitions of types of money and corollary to gold in history

Here is more interesting information that can be used for sourcing the article in the lead. This looks like a valuable ref/citation and I am going to add some info from it into the lead. More in this could be used no doubt also [16] - skip sievert (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is some new info now in the lead

'Start.... Representative money refers to money that consists of a token or certificate made of paper (legal tender). The use of the various types of money called commodity money, representative money, and fiat money tracks the course of money from the past to the present.[17] Economics:fundamentals for financial services providers By Jon A. Hooks page#201 ISBN 0899824943, 9780899824949 Retrieved Sept-9-09.... end.

The Jon Hooks reference clearly shows its historical use, not its current importance. (And he seriously fails to identify "credit money.") You are trying to push a point not supported by sources that this phrase is used widely today, which it is not. Misrepresenting the importance of the term "representative money" to make it look like it is a current form of money is not going to stop the government's phony prosecution of Liberty Dollar or make it more likely people will use gold. Gold, like diamonds, is a great store of value in a government destroyed economy. Otherwise it makes great jewelry. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, show its historical use and that is fine and good and it makes the point about a time line of usage also and the current time of fiat money. It also has a lot of other interesting information, which can be mined for the article still. I am not trying to push a point of view that it is used widely today. Please change your tone on this page from confronting, baiting, and taunting. Thanks.

The term 'representative money' has been used in the past "to signify that a certain amount of bullion was stored in a Treasury while the equivalent paper in circulation" represented the bullion. end from article... Is the article not clear on that? How is it that you think I am trying to pov about this term somehow... when that is what the article says... and the new references back up that sentiment which have been added?

For your information gold is not a good store of value. value is an abstract concept. Any form of money including gold is a type of fiat money because someone says it has value (in my opinion) though these terms are broken down in the article well as to definitions of them. Diamonds can be made commercially for a few cents of energy and gold also can be collected from sea water rather than mined, in an industrial process, but in the current system of monetizing energy it is a little too expensive to do that now. Oil also which is almost like a commodity money, can be manufactured with Thermal depolymerization process from carbon material with no green house gas involved in the process. There are very few instances of representative money as opposed to fiat money now, but in history, a short while ago, there was, and the article reflects that. skip sievert (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, i'm glad you admit that it is a little used term, but that should be in the first sentence of article not second paragraph. "The use of the various types of money called commodity money, representative money, and fiat money tracks the course of money from the past to the present.[1]" doesn't really tell us anything. The repeated sourcing, interpretation and WP:OR issues are so frustrating that one tries to find a rational explanation. Hopefully neutral third parties will come by and comment in the meantime and clarify it for you. I'm going out of town for a 5-7 days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not raise a false dichotomy of admitting. That is your issue and never was an issue or concern of mine... or even something I considered. It does tell us something. Read the reference note. It says a lot of the course of money and the current course of money and it is sourced. skip sievert (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another comment on definition and opening sentence

Skipsievert - I find the opening sentence particularly unfortunate from the point of view of understanding the U.S. paper money system of the late 19th and early 20th century. Federal representative money includes Silver Certs, Gold Certs, and the Coin Notes of 1890. The legal tender quality of these notes varied from "not a legal tender" to "a legal tender unless excluded under the contract" to "legal tender". The opening sentence here implies some unqualified connection of representative money to legal tender. This usage does not match the definition given in the reference at the end of the second sentence. Further, in the third sentence, U.S. Gold Certs are given as an example, however when U.S. Gold Certs were originally authorized in the Third Legal Tender Act in 1863, they were not given legal tender status - that status came several decades later. --LondonYoung (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. Glad you are knowledgeable as to these things. Please rephrase or make improvements accordingly. If you need any help with connecting anything let me know, and if you want to make a mock up first here, for editing or construction go ahead. Breaking the information down into finer aspects is a goal along with creative presentation. - Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a crack at the intro, but I am strong on history rather than economic theory. The body of the article should be expanded if it is to support some of the details it is plunging into, but I am happy for now. Tks! --LondonYoung (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro and sources look good. Thanks! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice improvement. skip sievert (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead needs to reflect fact it is not a term used widely to day - information which has been excised. See this diff which included: The term Representative money was used in the past "to signify that a certain amount of bullion was stored in the Treasury while the equivalent paper in circulation" represented the bullion. REF:William Howard Steiner, Money and banking, p.30, H. Holt and company, 1941. According to Robert A. Mundell what is called token or representative money represents a claim on a commodity, for example gold or silver certificates. However, he dismisses John Maynard Keynes' division of representative money into “fiat money” and “managed money” because it fails to recognize there is a continuum between commodity money and token money.Robert A. Mundell, The Birth of Coinage, Discussion Paper #:0102-08, Department of Economics, Columbia University, February 2002. Maybe at the next Wikipedia meetup I'll get some tips on motivating outside action on this sort of editing out of important facts. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is editing out important facts. It sounds like you are trying to make a case for a pov of original research. The article is sourced pretty well now and it would be impossible to not tell what the time line of this type of money is, as the lead states the timeline clearly. skip sievert (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I just quoted what was edited out. And I've been making the POV, WP:OR argument from the start. Especially this section: "Traditional representative money."

This sentence is too vague to make it clear that the phrase is little used today: the use of the various types of money called commodity money, representative money, and fiat money tracks the course of money from the past to the present. I'll edit it to something in compliance with wiki policies in near future, something closer to this version with anything since added of value also included. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have left in the material concerning Keynes if I had found an original quote. The quote I saw was only author x claiming Keynes said y and disagreeing with him. I am ashamed to say I don't have any of Keynes' works in my library. I think the issue here is whether representative money can include claims on debt? I would love to know!--LondonYoung (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on who is giving their opinion of Keynes, an economist in a treatise or a non-economist in a more informal document. Robert A. Mundell writing on "The Birth of Coinage, Discussion Paper #:0102-08," Department of Economics, Columbia University, February 2002 would certainly be the former. However, it was only necessary to mention his opinion at all because in a past version it was asserted Keyne's opined on the issue. If this is not asserted, it is not necessary.

Claim on a debt is what credit money is. Evidently representative money is just an old fashioned phrase for claim on a commodity.

The current definition is NOT supported by the source. The definitions that WERE supported by the source were taken out by another editor. Many editors consider replacing accurate properly sourced info with info that misrepresents a source vandalism.

I'll properly re-write the article again in a few days and then request an admin to look at what's been going on in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling other good faith editors vandals is not suggested. skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, sounds over my head. Good luck to all! --LondonYoung (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>See WP:Vandalism. I myself don't use the term as loosely as some ther editors. (And it's been used by me when deleting long unsourced info!) But when I described how I saw past edits recently at a get together a couple thought it sounded like vandalism. Don't be intimidated by policy. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to article

I wrote this strictly to sources I could find. I think the differing uses of the phrase show the continuing confusion over definitions of money in general, and representative money in particular. It would be helpful if I could find a WP:RS that was more specific on this topic. Meanwhile I am going to go over to Money article soon with sources I found stating that three kinds of money are commodity, credit and fiat, thereby putting representative money in its place of being a phrase with different meanings to different people, when it is used at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the debate here, not having read all this prior to my edits of today, I find I am glad I didn't, as it kept my thoughts about the article independent of prior commentary. I felt it was necessary to arrive at some kind of neutral definition of the term as the article seemed to treat one aspect preferentially without justification initially, and then created doubt about this definition by the mostly out of context citations of other notable personalities. Kbrose (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: that said, and having been influenced by the controversy here, I modified the lede again to emphasize the perhaps more historical use of the term. Kbrose (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because there were obvious violations of policy, including misuse of sources, in the now banned editor's version (and reverts) I was sticking pretty much to the sources I could find and what they said. You also seem to stick to sources.

And to me the sources indicated that this was pretty much an out of use phrase. I know one 1930's source (hiding somewhere in past diffs) called it old fashioned, though perhaps Keynes resuscitated it.

This is important because the phrase is one of the commonly used "types of money" - Money#Representative_money -in the Money article and I don't think it belongs there. I was going to straighten that in out the Money article, but got sidetracked. What are your thoughts on that issue?

Your first sentence does not include a referenced definition or clearly summarize the material below, including clarifying that issue, if possible.

Also it seems this sentence "Historically, the use of representative money predates the invention of coinage.[1]" should be at beginning, not end, of article.

Finally, since I have not been able to get the full Keynes book online, and am confused about there being Vol 1 vs. Vol 2 of the book (assumedly different editions), a direct quote of what he says on the topic in the refs and the actual book version and page might be nice. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Your first sentence does not include a referenced definition or clearly summarize the material below, including clarifying that issue, if possible."

(reply to this point) I intentionally did not provide a definitive explanation of the term, as it appears the term has different definitions for various authors. What I wrote is really just an abstraction of what they do have in common, (a) that it is money, and (b) it is only a documentation of value, not the valuable instrument or commodity itself, and (c) that definition of value is different by authors. Thus I have avoided the problem the article had before, that one interpretation was preferentially treated. With this, a general audience should understand these main characteristics of the term without having to believe one interpretation or another. I hope other editors here can agree that these indeed are the proper main characteristics, if not it may certainly be changed again. I don't think a generalization of the given sources of specific definitions needs to be specially referenced too, as then we couldn't write any general article in WP about a topic that hasn't been exactly generalized in the same way before. Kbrose (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Also it seems this sentence "Historically, the use of representative money predates the invention of coinage.[1]" should be at beginning, not end, of article."

(reply to point) Well it could be anywhere, but the article should provide more explanation of the differences between coinage and representative money, and what shape the latter had before coins. Without that, the statement shouldn't have much emphasis at all. I only included it because a reader might be interested in the history aspects and read the reference on the subject. Kbrose (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carolmooredc, thank you for thinking about the Money article. I am interested in distinguishing U.S. paper money of the 19th century. United States Notes were used as money due to their legal tender status; gold certificates were used as money since they certified the deposit of gold coins which were intrisically valuable money and for which they could be exchanged; and yet other types of money were used by the public mainly because the government would accept them in payment of taxes. In the 19th century the U.S. issued gold certificates, silver certificates, and even "coin notes" which were kind of a "Treasurer's pick" on whether he would redeem them in gold or silver. The Money article leads me to the term representative money for these last types. If this is not a good term, I am happy to adjust my usage to conform to the Money article ... LondonYoung (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The new definition is so broad as to encompass almost any type of money. This definition is not supported by any of the published definitions as it is broader than all of them. If it is the case that there are multiple well-sourced definitions which are contradictory, we will have to list them all. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Crosbiesmith that the definition is broader than the sources, and not just a summary. A summary would refer to the various uses documented below it. And "historically" is a bit vague, since doesn't make it clear when it was used and if it is used widely by economists today, and esp. as compared to concepts of commodity, credit and fiat money. I'm not sure why one economist is trying to resuscitate the term or if others are also.

I agree with Kbrose that if we don't have more info about differences between coinage and representative money, and what shape the latter had before coins, it should not be in there. I'd gotten the impression various letters and promises of credit written on tabs, which are NOT representative money, may have preceded coinage in some places and this is what some are confusing with representative money.

To LondonYoung, there is no problem with showing what sources say about history of representative money in the History of Money article and in this article. I just have a problem with much being said about a largely old fashioned phrase in the Money article. It should be a broad overview focusing especially on today's concepts of money. But wanted to settle the issue here, before proposing any changes there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc - OK, I await settlement of the issue and will fix the articles on paper money that I am tending when you guys seem to have reached your conclusions. LondonYoung (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The new definition is not a definition at all. If you read exactly what is states, it is a term used by some people that may represent many forms of money, which is clear from the divergence of definitions by each author. And my formulation also makes it clear that the definition depends on some value system and leaves it open for further discussion. I don't think it makes much sense for WP editors to create a definition when extremely notable scholars don't have a unified use or view of the term and we will never arrive at a consensus here just what the term means. All the article can possibly state, I think, are the three bullet points I mentioned earlier and list the examples of what various authors associate with the term, which is pretty much what we have now, but lacking detail and context. The exact prose to express this is obviously a choice WP editors can make, but there has to be a consensus first that we can't create a new definition here, nor single out one or the other. Of course the term 'historically' is vague, because obviously it cannot be pinpointed to a specific time, other than to indicate that usage seems to be primarily not modern. It is up to each section discussing the various interpretations to state when the usages were current. The only definitive statement my lede makes is that representative money is used as money and that it is not a gold coin, for example, which seems to be what the common interpretation is, but perhaps someone has an interpretation that values a minted cold coin as more than just its metal value. I think before worrying about the lede too much, the article should do a much better job of outlining just what the noted scholars use the term for, and not just present out-of-context 'definitions'. A section on each author would be appropriate. Finally then, the lede should be a summary of the sections. The argument was made here, that it is not a summary of the article, well, the article doesn't have any body to be summarized, the entire article is the lede which is already entirely an extreme summarization of the mentioned authors. I can't imagine to summarize this even further. Instead each of the mentioned points now needs a section of discussion.

As far as the money article is concerned, I think I would remove the section entirely and provide a general link to this article somehow, perhaps just a 'see also' link. Money can't possibly be comprehensive for a general audience and summarize this meager article even further. Kbrose (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a definition of the term: http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Representative:money.htm. It also gives the impression that representative money can be almost any money, as long as it's not a quantity of an underlying commodity itself. But it doesn't provide any sources for its claims. Kbrose (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks to be an old version of the wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Representative_money&oldid=9098721 - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have suspected as much. Kbrose (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A few days behind in discussions. Anyway, I agree the lead should not give out of context definitions - it also should not seem to give such a definitive definition that is broader than the sources, and not just a summary. Been too busy to come up with alternative. It's on my list... CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I now understand the new lead text does not provide a definition. The lead should provide a definition. The change has removed the single definition given and replaced it with no definition. I agree that we should neither create a definition nor should the article single out a definition. The solution is to provide multiple definitions. The lead will look something like this:

The term representative money has been used variously to mean:

• a claim on a commodity, for example gold certificates or silver certificates
• any type of money that has face value greater than its value as material substance . Used in this sense, fiat money is a type of representative money.

-Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I made the change - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I will probably make a similar change to the fiat money article. Keynes uses a definition different from that currently given . - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Since Representative money clearly is NOT a fourth type of money but just an alternate way of describing commodity and fiat money, it only should be in the intro to types of money in Money article. It would help to have an actual quote from Keynes that explains his view in the footnote, i.e., whatever below is most relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, there are only 12 federal reserve banks in the U.S., here is how one of them defines representative money http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/history.cfm IMHO, or make that VERY humble opinion, you guys rely too much on Keynes; he was just one dude, as much as current politics would like us to put greater faith in him ... --LondonYoung (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's another useful source, particularly as it is a contemporary source. I have no objection to the Keynes definition being relegated to later in the article, as long as we have at least one sourced definition in the lead. I included both as I was unable to justify singling out one over the other. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is too radioactive for me to touch, but it seems to me that there is, somewhere, a term for paper money that consists of a claim to exchange for a "harder" form of money. I think "representative money" is that term, but Keynes clearly used the term differently. Has anyone else ever agreed with Keynes? --LondonYoung (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Expansion?

I'd like to expand it to make it clear it's an old fashioned barely used term. I had a source to that effect which was taken out. Maybe I should put it back in. Anyway, hopefully you've read past discussions on talk page and will say what you mean in light of them. Otherwise, let's get rid of that tag. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, what is called "representative money" in this article is what Keynes called "managed money"-- an even more obscure term which he probably DID make up, and nobody else used. For Keynes, a paper silver certificate is "managed money" because the government undertakes to ensure that it can always be redeemed for a particular amount of silver. And a federal reserve note is "fiat money" because the government simply declares that it's worth so many "dollars." And Keynes would call them BOTH representative money, simply because the paper isn't intrinsically worth that many dollars, or that much silver, and thus only represents them. Interesting idea. But unless we can find somebody other than Keynes using the term "managed money" to refer to things like gold and silver certificates, I like "representative money" better as a term for them. The idea of "representation" in Keynes' usage is already implicit in the idea of fiat money, so why subsume fiat money under what would otherwise be a valuable and specific term for something else, which Keynes does? Even Keynes wanted different terms for fiat money and money that derived its value from its commodity backing, which is why he invented the term "managed money." We just have to DECIDE what we would like to call this. Keynes called it managed money. What do WE want? From the cites given above, most people have not used Keynes' terminology, and have reserved "representative money" as the best term for money backed by a fixed amount of commodity(which it represents). Yes, fiat money "represents" yet more fiat money, but different quantities of it-- an idea which boggles the mind. That's what Keynes was getting at, but I think it needs to be discussed separately from money which represents an ounce of gold. SBHarris 16:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Keynes view is represented in the article. Obviously neither term has been picked up or used by others. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)