Talk:Money/Archive 2

Money Supply

The section on Money Supply should be deleted or greatly shortened, as there is now an article on money supply. The discussion on money supply is more of a policy discussion, rather than a definitional or working disucssion of what money is. Jason Hommel 05:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful ...

There is no dichotomy between money and bartering: it's entirely conceivable that a medium of exchange and unit of account has no store of value function.

I'm also not sure about the durability issue: store of value doesn't require that a money token keep its value indefinitely, just that it doesn't suddenly stop having value entirely, as far as I can see. Limited shelf life articles such as grain could thus count as money.

In general, we don't need to defend the idea of money in this article: it's sufficient to state that money is one way to avoid the double coincidence of barter, and thus facilitates the division of labour (the extent to which that is a good thing is a different question entirely).

I've added a couple of Template:facts, though I really should have removed the unsourced statements, as I believe them to be wrong.

RandomP 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that money may not have a store of value function, such as with paper money or tickets at a fair. I agree that money need not be durable to last indefinitely, and that grain, which can last 20 years can be used as money. The limited shelf life means that grain is probably not very fungible, that is to say 19 year old grain is probably not as useful as fresh grain, and I don't know if grain that is traded on the commodity markets comes with an expiration date, although the contracts certainly do.

But I think we do need to define the idea of money as these attributes are being discussed, regarding durability and fungibility being desirable characteristics of money. And further, that no one item seems to fit the perfect definition perfectly, as even gold coins can be scratched, or clipped, or debased.

Jason Hommel 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rework "commodity money" language

The use of the word "commodity" is often used in a derogitory manner and is also inaccurate when talking about metals in "early money". Metals were not commoditites when first used as money and in fact, metals were very hard to produce and not freely traded as is required for something to be a commodity. I would like to see this section rewritten with the word metal replacing the word commodity in most (if not all instances). Carbonate 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymity

Money is at its root a tool to facilitate trade between people. This often includes trade that governments would like not to happen. It is however in the peoples interests that this trade continues and to that end, money should be anonymous and free of government tracking. Almost all money today is anonymous with the rare exception of specially marked bills. There are even websites set up that attempt to track dollars as they move about the economy and show just how anonymous any given bill really is. Carbonate 20:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Money is information

I was just explaining to someone that money is information and wanted to refer him to this article, but it turns out the word 'information' doesn't even appear once in the article. I thought that was the primary purpose of money - you make some effort, don't get any goods in return, but a piece of paper (or whatever) proving that you have done a certain amount's worth of goods or services or whatever. When a society gets too big for people to rememeber who did what (or even know each other) you need this more abstract of information. Do I get this right or was my economy education a wasted effort? :) DirkvdM 06:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting off slang terms for money

User:Omegatron just suggested splitting off a section of the article exclusively devoted to English-language slang terms for money. I support this, with the possible caveat that the information might be more appropriate for wiktionary anyway. Any objections?

RandomP 17:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary might be more appropriate, but this definitely doesn't belong here, and the values do belong in the other article. — Omegatron 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say be bold and go ahead with it - if there's any opposition we can always have a discussion later, though this is a clear case of WP is not a dictionary. RandomP 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I split it off, but some people are complaining the fact that there is no source. I don't know what to do. Please advise. Go to money (slang terms). Chris 02:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement for Scotland and Northern Ireland currencies only accepted as currency in the jurisdic

Have removed the statement "In Scotland and Northern Ireland private sector banks are licensed to print their own paper money by the government. These are known as currency notes and are only accepted as currency in the jurisdiction where they were issued" as it is factually incorrect.

Scottish and Northern Irish currency is accepted throughout the UK.

I removed some edits by Goldassayer about The Power of Money on 13 November 2006

See the version in question. There were serious formatting problems, but far more serious WP:POV and WP:OR issues. I left a note on the user's talk page. That said, some of this info may be a good add, if sourced and researched. I know there was an RfC on this, and I'm not too farmiliar with it, so I wanted to note my reversion here, and leave it to those more farmiliar with the issue. AubreyEllenShomo 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the, "Problems with gold as money" section

I was casually reading through this article when I came across this section.

From 1980 to 2001, gold was a poor store of value as its own value was unstable due to the manipulations of the worlds central banks conspiring to manipulate the market by selling their reserves to keep the price down.; gold prices dropped from a high of $850/oz. to a low of $255/oz., and that is also being measured in terms of dollars that were also losing value, so the 1980 high might be more like $1600/oz., but a precisely accurate amount is nearly impossible to measure. The advantage of gold and silver, however, lies in the fact that the supply cannot be increased by dishonest bankers. In 2006 they were running low on gold and silver with which to manipulate the market, and the debt overhanging the fiat money fractional reserve system will soon deflate. This will cause the buying power of silver and gold to rise to extreme levels at first, and then to be used as money until the next system of fiat money, or fiat electronic credit is imposed on the world.

This section seems to scream, "The evil capitalist central bankers are trying to take over the world, but hold on to hope, because they will destroy themselves soon enough!!!" Yes, that was an exaggeration, but it is a conspiracy theory. Perhaps these things did occur, but I see no evidence of this in the article. The way this section is written decreases its credibility, and predicting the downfall of the current monetary system is problematic at best. Would someone like to edit this section, or should it be deleted?Happytrombonist16 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up just there. I still think the quality of what's left is pretty bad. I'd recommend someone more articulate than me to rewrite the section entirely. --Tilmitt 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I would say 99% of vandalism is done by anonymous IP addresses. And since I don't know what the benefit is to allow annonymous edits to Wikipedia, I say you should be required to register to edit. What would be the problem with changing that policy? I don't even want to think how much time is wasted by reverting silly vandalism. Dullfig 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is out of control on this page. For lack of anything better to do, added to Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages.MArcane 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mammon, the Religion of Money . Who is the vandal?

Nobody can explain whats happening into the mind of so many citizens, why they allow themselves to be ruled by money, why they believe on it, why they spend all their time and effort for all their life in order to poccess this small useless piece of paper or metal. A paper or metal which is controled and printed by a small minority who plays the role of the money maker authority. For this small piece of paper or metal to circulate and become a trade object, faith is required above all. Thats why money is considered by some sociologists to be a religion. The faith people have to the money maker authority is comparable to the faith ancient egyptians had for their pharao, in order to allow themselves to be enslaved, to work for him and built the pyramids. It is notable that Bible uses for money the world mammon, and faith in Mammon is comparable to the faith in God:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24

I inserted the above text, and User:Gwernol vandalised it instead of comment it, accusing me of being a vandal and threating me that he will use ban against me. Lets make a straw poll here: Who is the vandal? Am I or s/he is?

1. I think User:Gwernol is the vandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InMatmonWeTrust (talk • contribs).
2. CambridgeBayWeather said: "Gwernol is saying, and I agree, that the rest of InMatmonWeTrust contribution is his POV, unverifiable and OR."

Please stop this ridiculous charade. Your addition is original research. Please read that policy and understand that you cannot include material that is your own interpretation on any Wikipedia article. Since you have no reliable sources for this addition it is unverifiable. If you can provide independent reliable sources for your addition you can add it. Until then it cannot be included on Wikipedia. Gwernol 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My straw poll will reveal what the others are thinking about this subject. Wheither a Bible's quote is original research or not, this is also YOUR POV, not everyones POV. InMatmonWeTrust 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol is not saying the bible quote is original research. He is saying, and I agree, that the rest of your contribution is your POV, unverifiable and OR. Thus to keep re-inserting it is to act in the manner of a vandal, while posting this section on the talk page might give some people the impression that you were trying to act trollish. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You dont agree with my interpretation. Its two against one now, so I cease for the momment. Whats your interpratation? Do you agree for the BELOW quote to be added at least?

==Mammon, the Religion of Money ==

Bible uses for money the word mammon, and faith in Mammon is comparable to the faith in God:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be :::::devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24

This is another straw poll. InMatmonWeTrust 13:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree for the text to be added. Bible is right. InMatmonWeTrust 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
2. 'Bible is right'?? That's POV, and extremely simplified, but you do have a point. Say there was a sudden disaster in a city, say dinosaurs with missile launchers were destroying the city, and everyone was in a panic to get out. If there was a train leaving the city and it was completely full, and you offered someone thousands of dollars to get off the train and let you take his place, he would say no. Your money would be worthless in that situation. The function of money requires people accept it, have 'faith' in it, the same as road rules. The entire system collapses if people choose to drive on the wrong side of the road. So you have a point, but your paragraph is too preachy, and using phrases such as 'Nobody can explain whats(sic) happening' is innapropriate for an encyclopedia. Rewrite it in encyclopeadic language, and it could work. (58.105.190.2 06:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC))

Incidently, I can give you an explanation of why people submit to a minority authority who distribute money. If you are a carpenter, it's difficult to build a table, take it to the markets and buy groceries with it. Money simplifies transactions because people can accept that it represents your efforts of skills, and that is why it has value. More highly skilled workers tend to get higher wages. It is a convenient arrangement. Ayn Rand would say people who love money are good, because they are people who strive to better themselves and their skills and work hard to make more money, money being the representation of their own self-worth. She would describe 'worshiping' money as 'loving' yourself. (58.105.190.2 06:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC))

Do you know what a rational carpenter is going to do? He will create his own woody-money, and he will try to convince others to use his woody-money as their unique medium of exchange. All the others, carpenters or not, they are going to do exactly the same, they will try to coin their own money and again convince the others that "this is the money you must use". And whose money is going to dominate? Either the money of the one who is capable to enspire faith for his money, or the money of the one who is capable to enforce it. Thats why worshiping the money I coin is loving myself, worshiping the money someone else coins is not loving myself, it is loving (or believing) someone else. Money is not the representation of our own self-worth, because most of the times money is the fruit of our ability to enforce others. Sometimes money is the fruit of our ability to convince others to work for us. Do you believe that our ability to enforce (or our ability to convince naives to work for us) defines our self-worth? Your are right money simplifies transactions and that is why it has value. Almost everyone agrees that money has value. But the point is not whether money has value, but whose money has value. It is the same with religion, almost everyone agree that religion is a good thing, but whose religion is the good one? InMatmonWeTrust 14:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's keep the article secular. Dullfig 19:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My POV, and Bible's POV, is that money is a religion, it is a blind faith in a useless object and an irrational trust in a minority which coins that object. How can you keep a religion secular? InMatmonWeTrust 08:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not reading your quote correctly. In no way does Matthew 6:24 say that mammon (money) is a religion. All it says is that greed and loving money is wrong and may take the place of worshiping God, as does 1 Timothy 6:10 and Hebrews 13:5. Also Proverbs 30:8-9 would indicate some necessity for money. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I ll remove my sentence and I ll put yours in the proposed text.

==Mammon, the Religion of Money ==

Bible uses for money the word mammon:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be :::::devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24

Greed and loving money may take the place of worshiping God.

So, do you, and all the rest, agree we insert the above? 12:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't, it still contains an interpretation of the quote. The quote is relevant to the article since as the Bible is a major influence on many people. Just include the quote without interpretation. Something like:

==Biblical view of money==

The Bible refers to money as mammon:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be :::::devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24

Gwernol 12:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No I don't agree that the Bible quote should have its own section. It implies that the Wikipedia supports/endorses the Bible and Christianity over other religions. So I have moed it down to a general "quotes on money" section. Also, Mammon more accurately describes material wealth or greed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that ;) (220.238.164.38 11:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

Why Is this page in the Religion Category?

I found that the page is in the Category:Religion, and am in the process of adding all such pages to the worklist of that project. Personally, though, I have trouble seeing how it actually falls within that category. I have added the banner to the talk page here, simply on a pro forma basis, and will remove it happily if it is found inappropriate. Should that be the case, however, I would request that the page be removed from the Category mentioned, as I'm not really sure of that category's direct applicability. Badbilltucker 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the category. Don't see how it is related. Dullfig 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Money is related to religion in a number of ways, most notably 666 in Revlation Chapter 13. However, the Bible has lots to say about money, and one of the main features of today's modern religious wars is the argument over what should be money. Jason Hommel 07:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Moved info from Introduction to section on History

I moved several paragraphs from the introduction to the section on history. They were great. However, there was a concluding paragraph as follows:

The value of money depends on what it can purchase, not what it is made of. This is illustrated by the fact that when huge quantities of gold and silver were discovered in the New World and brought back to Europe for conversion into coin, the purchasing power of those coins fell by 60% to 80% because the supply of goods for sale did not keep pace with the increased supply of money. The ultimate backing for money is the productive capacity of society.

I deleted this paragraph as it is a not a neutral point of view, it has a definite point of view, and it makes too many argumentative and decidedly debatable statements. You could just as easily say that the value of money depends on what society values, and not what it is made of. Finally, the final sentence does not relate to the first part of the paragraph; it is a modern doctrine of the value of paper money, but simply does not belong here. Jason Hommel 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Restore para to intro

The deleted para is directly based on material from John Galbraith's Money: Whence it Came p.20-21. It is a simple historical fact and there is nothing argumentative or debatable about it. Rather than simply rejecting it on vague basis, I suggest you explain more clearly what bothers you about it so we can explore middle ground.

Yes, you could very well say that the value of money depends on what society values -- that is the basic fact which is usually lost sight of. Therefore this para is important to raise the issue of the ultimate basis for the value of money. I agree that the concluding para does hang a bit but the issue of what is the ultimate basis for money needs to be raised and addressed in this article. There I am splitting it into two separate paras, expanding the second and reinserting them both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garryjacobs (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Problems with Money

Many thanks to whoever rewrote the two sections about the problems with money. They are MUCH better. I also like the addition of the History section. It keeps all the relevant information in the article while making the introduction a true introduction rather than a dissertation.Happytrombonist16 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This page has been vadalized.

Social Evolution of Money

The entire paragraph titled Social Evolution of Money is, like, New Age mumbo-jumbo and could be deleted without loss. The paragraph "Many people have the misimpression" is biased. I'm not familiar with the whole world, but in the USA most people used for currency either gold silver and copper coins or certificates claiming to be redeemable in such on demand. So I'm going to delete both of these.

I really like the direction the opening paragraphs have gone; much better than they were several months ago. The definition of money is very good, considering the subject's complexity and potential controversy. Novel-Technology 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A popular Wikipedia term for such things as "many people" is weasel words. They are considered a Bad Thing. Notinasnaid 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your hasty action, I quote Britannica "modern money is a social contrivance. People accept money as such because they know that others will. This common knowledge makes the pieces of paper valuable because everyone thinks they are, and everyone thinks they are because in his or her experience money has always been accepted in exchange for valuable goods, assets, or services. At bottom money is, then, a social convention, but a convention of uncommon strength that people will abide by even under extreme provocation." There is nothing mumbo-jumbo or new age about the para. It is common fact among economists. I am afraid you are also misinformed about US currency. The gold standard was in effect for less than 60s years.Even at the height of the gold standard no country held sufficient gold and silver to redeem more than a small fraction of the currency in circulation. In England, the percentage was less than 10% when the Sterling was the strongest currency in the world. Since the 1930s, US citizens have not been permitted to redeem currency for gold. Redemption was only permitted to regularize foreign trade imbalances. Since 1970 no redemption is possible and their is no linkage between precious metal and currency in the US or other major countries. Your hasty action only shows that misimpressions about money are widespread and that is all the more reason for a detailed discussion about it. Therefore I am restoring the deleted section.Garryjacobs 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the Britannica quote, though POV and not perfect, essentially makes sense and is coherent. Yours doesn't and isn't. "Less than 60 years": re-he-he-he-lly! Wow! Which 60 years would that be? What were all those American colonists using as money in say, 1654? How about 1843? Gold and silver coins obviously must have been unheard of, because they were only used as money for 60 years! Is that your position? Anyway, even a statement like Britannica's, I think, would be unacceptable without acknowledging other points of view. The Austrian school of Economics, for instance, would assert that all money originally begins as commodity money, not as "a social convention", and that successfully moneyfied commodities are those in most universal demand and with other good money characteristics (like antibacterial-ness, lol). No "social contrivance", "common knowledge" or "convention of uncommon strength" needed. Just good business sense seeing a way out of double-coincidence. I think history largely supports the Austrian view for the orgin of money. Does this view not count, though? Is Galbraith's silliness the only legit POV to be presented? Novel-Technology 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An important quality of money is.... antibacterial-ness? And why exactly is the "opinion of all libertarians and most laissez-faire economists" especially important? And the opinion of Galbraith and Gerry is apparently relevant enough for display at "Social and psychological value of money". Interesting, the article is biased in so many different directions. But the first part of the article is good, it just kind of goes downhill. Novel-Technology 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If the section is back, the weasel words need sorting, so I will seek a suitable tag. Notinasnaid 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Look Garry, I understand you probably wrote it and are attatched to it, but the Social History paragraph is junk. It's fluff. It's unsupportable, because it's also undeniable, because it essentially is meaningless! And the "Many people" paragraph is not totally innaccurate, but it just does not give the full picture of the historical situation, and, I think, is biased. Novel-Technology 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

marxism

needs mentioning of how marxism sees money 69.251.20.244 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiat/Paper Money has intrinsic value

Most Libertarians will say fiat money has NO intrinsic value, however they are incorrect. Paper money just has an extremely low intrinsic value. In periods of hyper-inflation paper money has been used as wallpaper, toliet paper, to start fires, blocks of bound bills have been used as building blocks for children. When the printing presses run 24/7, eventually money is only printed on one side because of the cost of inking and moving bills, in which case the value of the money has hit its intrinsic value.
~ender 2007-03-09 21:50:PM MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

202.82.33.202 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Non-NPOV disinformation in "features of money" section

I have altered two features to be features of opinion, not generally accepted features. It is the viewpoint, probably, of all libertarians and most neoclassical economists that money should be not traceable and usable in a black market. However, socialist governments would probably welcome a technology that allows them better central control of economic activities, and also prevent the operation of black markets which are, of course, criminal operations and which undercut social goals.

Please don't confuse NPOV with uniquely American views which sometimes represent the views of straightforward economic criminals. Thank you!

Money as Debt

Wasn't sure where to post this, perhaps you can help out, this is a documentary on how money is created, and a brief history of it, all in simple english easy to understand for anyone. It shows how evil and corrupt the system is and a way to change it for the better before its too late, watch it before critising it plz.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=money+as+debt

Thematrix606 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Money#Characteristics

At first I couldn't figure out what had been done. I decided the edits were:

• removed the {{Main|blah blah}} in favor of just having the links in the headings.

  I think I can like it, though the extra linking was at least explicit.

• changing the headings from formatted list to explicit section titles

  Ick, twice over. First, the TOC is now cluttered with internal 'points'. Second, now there are [edit] links on each internal list point.

• shortened text on point 2

  Err, I kinda liked the links to trade and barter. This information may be present in the linked articles, but the existing statement is just too short now?

Anyway, thought I'd mention what I saw, for the likely "what the hay changed?".   Shenme 06:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics/Desirable Features

There seems to be significant duplication between these two sections. I don't know enough about wikipedia to combine them without leaving a remnant of one behind, but they should be combined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.62.70 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC).