Talk:Money/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review: Missing coverage areas/Further suggestions

Characteristics of money

It seems to me that there are some key coverage areas that are missing from this article. Each of these above points is probably worth an article in and of themselves, but the main money article should at least let the reader know that these issues have to be considered for a fuller understanding of money.

Taking each of the 4 characteristics, one by one, I note:

  • Medium of exchange
    • PPP (Purchasing power parity) not mentioned - this is the theoretical basis for calculating exchange rates between currencies.
    • role of interest rate in exchange rates
    • management of exchange rates. Governments (and sometimes private funds or consortiums) attempt to manage the exchange rate. Their methods vary in terms of their method of control and their method of calculating a desirable rate. Methods of control include: rates fixed by government agencies, manipulation of interest rates, manipulation of government spending, purchase of excess currency, sale of currency to increase supply. Methods for calculating a fair rate would include pegging to a more stable currency or commodity, pegging to a currency basket, and various kinds of models based on PPP or national economic statistics.
  • Unit of account
    • book value vs market value - two ways of accounting using money. This raises two issues:
      • the trade off between tracking cash flow (requires book value) vs. real value (requires market value)
      • objective vs. subjective measures of account (validity of measure)
    • present vs. future value - factoring in the time value of money
    • money systems within small groups - small social groups (e.g. kibbutzim, summer camps, prisons, primary school class rooms, residential mental health programs, corporations) sometimes develop private systems to track and/or trade privileges. These are arguably forms of "money" although they do not have liquidity outside of their small social group.
  • Storage medium
    • private exposure to currency fluctuations - those not in a position to control rates, try to limit their exposure to fluctuations via hedging using various sorts of currency derivatives.
    • impact of inflation and deflation - real value vs nominal value

Neutral point of view

  • Credit - only discusses why credit should not be counted in the money supply. There is another side to this argument and it needs to be addressed. Credit is in a gray zone because it makes future money available now. If money supply is a measure of purchasing power, credit needs to be included. If money supply is a measure of national assets or wealth it needs to be excluded. If money supply is a measure of economic health it can go either way depending on whether one is more concerned about demand or supply side effects.


Article organization

I think the article could be made a little easier to read and evaluate if it were restructured. 18 main topics is a bit much. I might suggest the following reorganization based on the four characteristics? An explanation follows.

  1. Historical and social context
    1. Historical forms
    2. Social evolution of money
    3. Linkages between money and other social institutions
    4. Modern forms
    5. The future of money
    6. Benchmark world currencies
  2. Economic characteristics
    1. Money as a medium of exchange
      1. Desirable characteristics
      2. Commodity based standards (e.g. gold)
      3. Money defined by social contract (e.g. paper money)
    2. Money as a unit of account
      1. Desirable characteristics
      2. Market value vs. book value
      3. Present value vs. future value - time value of money
    3. Money as a storage medium
      1. Desirable characteristics
      2. Hedging to preserve value
      3. Impact of inflation and deflation
      4. Physical decay and commodity backed currencies
    4. Liquidity
      1. Money should be anonymous (this is really a liquidity issue)
  3. Managing the national money supply
    1. Tracking the money supply (definition, statistics)
    2. Credit - when is it money?
    3. Private currencies
    4. Economic impact
  • Economic characteristics of money.
    • The content of the Desirable characteristics section should be grouped under each of the four characteristics. They are already, but by putting them in a top level heading the conceptual link is harder to see
    • The section Money#Economic value of money is primarily about the value of different kinds of money as a medium of exchange.
  • Managing the national money supply.
    • The four sections Money supply, Credit, Money and economy, and Private currencies are all about how governments do or should control the supply of money within their economy and why. Their content should also be grouped into a single major section.
    • Credit is really part of a larger discussion of what should be counted in the money supply.
    • The theorists listed in Money and economy are concerned primarily with the economic effects of the money supply are focused on the money supply internal to the economy as well as what impacts it and how to control it in a way beneficial to the economy.
    • Money#Private currencies discusses nations granting rights to print money - this also is driven by a country's money supply management policy
I think this is getting too technical here when talking about the money supply. A lot of these ideas can be expanded in money supply or central bank, and probably should. Leigao84 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this proposed reorganisation JQ 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Source citations

I know this has already been said, but it can't be stressed enough. This article really needs strong secondary source citations - e.g. well respected textbooks and journal articles. Encyclopedic websites aren't probably suitable unless their academic qualifications have been validated.

Egfrank 10:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few and will try to put in some more when I get time.JQ 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sections

As noted above, there are far too many sections. I've merged "social evolution of money" into "history of money". I've also replaced the scrappy future of money section with one on currency unions. One section that should be reduced to a sentence or two, in my view is that on private currencies. Unless someone disagrees, I'll put it into history of money where it belongs. JQ 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Good call. I moved the currency union section into the history section, seeing as it is really the next stage. Hope that is OK.

Private currency section

JQ - sounds right to me, perhaps it should be moved into the History of Money#Representative money section along with the link to the main article on private currencies.

But it may not be a good idea just to copy it wholesale. The last paragraph in particular, is problematic:

  • The Big Mac index is not an appropriate citation - its a humorous measure of PPP, *not* something backing a currency.
  • The discussion about currencies backed with energy or other perishables looks like someone might have confused money with derivatives. (Technically even a bank-note backed by a non-perishable commodity such as gold is a derivative. A derivative is defined as any financial instrument whose value is contractually derived from the price of an underlying). So the question is: what differentiates money from derivatives and what currencies backed by perishables meet this standard?
  • The transaction volume of private currencies needs a citation - if it really is 12b per annum, it probably at least deserves a mention in the money article.

Egfrank 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need a sentence or so, not a wholesale move. Average daily turnover in global financial markets is around $1.2 trillion [1], so I don't think $12 billion a year merits a mention unless it is put in this context.JQ 07:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Egfrank 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes about money

I'm not too enamored by this section. I think it should be taken out? Leigao84 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How about replacing that section with a single link to Wikiquote (Money)? --rich<Rich Janis 09:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)>

legality...

this article defines money as having to be legally acceptable, yet in the History of money article it lists cigarettes as an example of money. Which is right? Kingturtle 11:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of money

I Boldly deleted this section because it seemed to me to restate material presented earlier in a rather unencyclopedic tone. But I probably should have discussed before doing so.JQ 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of Money

I see the types of money section has been removed. I'm wondering if we could discuss this and consider putting it back. The stated reason is that it is redundant. I don't see this at all.

  • alluding to the concept of "types of money" via links while discussing the history of money is *not* the same as discussing the conceptual framework behind the idea that money has types. It fails to focus on the conceptual dynamics and leaves the false impression that things like "fiat money" are nothing more than different ways to back physical currency. In today's world where the vast majority of the money supply exists solely in electronic or contractual form, it is important for people to understand the distinction between money and currency.
  • the dynamics implied by the "types of money" are important to understanding much of modern monetary policy or the relationship between currency fluctuations and political risk, i.e. the relationship between contracts, legal systems, risk, future vs. current payment etc.
  • the idea that money has different "types" is important to understanding why there is such a thing as M1, M2, M3 or why countries may differ in the way they track money supply.
  • without an explicit discussion of the types of money we are likely to eventually get editors trying to turn this article into a diatrabe for one standard or another (there were several paragraphs that appeared to be thinly veiled polemics for the gold standard in the article before we began working on this article last week).
  • similarly we are likely to get a reappearance of the section that tried to insist that credit was something different from money rather than a particular type of money.
  • the section also discussed strengths and limitation of the different types of money and their effects on economic growth. I don't see where that appears anywhere in the remainder of the article.

I do agree that there is some repetition ... rather than remove the types of money section, I would recommend that we deal with some of the redundancy by moving some of the pro/con stuff from the history of money section to the types of money section. There will, however, be a limit to the amount we can move because some of the concepts that rightly belong in a discussion of types of money are needed to understand the history.

Another possibility is to move the types of money section before the history of money section. This would reduce the need to explain types of money in the history section. I didn't do that earlier because most people have a concrete notion of money (money = currency) and so might find the "types of money" discussion a bit dry. I felt putting the history of money section first helps people make the transition from a concrete to an abstract understanding of money. Readers are more prepared for the more theoretical discussion after they have read the history section.

Egfrank 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I take your point but, to the extent that it wasn't redundant, I felt that the section gave a rather uncritical and unencyclopedic presentation of the views of Ludwig von Mises, who is a pretty marginal figure in monetary theory these days. As in so much of this article, what we need is citation to a proper source giving an accessible presentation of the mainstream view. It's not really my field, but I'll see what I can dig up. JQ 12:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the section is incomplete and unbalanced. For example, whereas 3 whole sub-sections are devoted to each of the Mises categories, there is almost no discussion of the categorization system behind M0-3 (important for a great deal of econometric research). Also the introductory paragraph to the section only mentions Mises and says nothing about modern theory. Anything you can do to address this would be great!
I think a balanced presentation should include all the mainstream categorization systems we can find, with an explanation of their theoretical or pragmatic significance. M0-3 seems to use liquidity as the categorization principle with currency (M0) being the most liquid and large time deposits (M3) being the least. By contrast the commodity-credit-fiat distinction focuses on the source of trust. The value of each categorization system depends on the kind of economic behavior we need to induce or explain.
Minor though Mises might be, the system of categorization that he bases his work upon appears to be widely taught based on a quick survey of on-line college course lecture notes. (But note the variation in the third category which Mises calls credit money: Deposit money (UPenn), fiduciary money(Drexel), Electronic money(iowa). )
One possible reason why this categorization does not get heavy play in modern monetary theory is that such theory was developed primarily to explain the behavior of developed economies. Liquidity based categorization is more useful and interesting because the different types co-exist within a developed economy. This makes them more amenable to econometric modeling.
On the other hand, there are contexts where trust based categorizations such as commodity-fiat-credit are quite helpful in framing problems. I recall some work I did several years ago on African warehouse receipts programs and their role in developing the supply of capital. Fiat currencies rely heavily on the economics of trust. When governments are perceived by the West as having little stability and transparency, it is difficult to use free market forces to attract capital or stabilize the currency. One solution to this is to use modern financial markets and hedging strategies to create stable money-like instruments (warehouse receipts) backed by tradable commodities. The idea is that the warehouse receipts will be attractive to both local and western investors because they are backed by the world financial markets and not by the government.
Can you clarify what you meant by uncritical rehashing of Mises? Beyond the wording for the definitions of each type of money and the comment that he based his theory around this particular categorization system, I'm not sure what comes from Mises in this section. Most of the material is a rearrangement from the pre-improvement drive version of the Wiki article and came from several editors who didn't cite their sources. The explanation of credit risk is standard finance and I believe postdates the cited work by Mises. The discussion of the role of supply and demand in commodity based currencies was part of the original Wiki article and goes back to Adam Smith - the Wealth of Nations. (see Book I, chapters III-V). As for the categorization system, Adam Smith does not use the terms commodity and fiat currency but the concept is present in books III when he theorizes that weighing coins is burdensome so people began to trust coins based on their imprint and not their metallic weight.
I'm going to put the section back with some reworking to make it clearer that there are alternate categorization schemes, but it will be just a start. At least that way we will have a text over which we can discuss specific problems. Egfrank 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was put off at the start by the unencyclopedic tone of "a point driven home in his (von Mises) book The Theory of Money and Credit", and some unsourced claims in the discussion that followed.
More to the point though, as your discussion indicates, the commodity-fiat-credit categorization recapitulates the historical development we already have in the article. If we want to use any of this, including history of thought on the topic, it fits naturally in the history section. For a modern approach, we really want to focus on liquidity, as you say. Also, we need a main article on Monetary economics, which currently just redirects here. Money supply needs lots of work too, unfortunately.JQ 08:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we might be having a debate here between a macro-economic perspective and a finance perspective? If we want to be throughly modern, I think we also need to consider trust, risk, and institutional stability as well as liquidity. Even cash holdings of a currency without trust are not going to be very liquid.
The commodity/fiat/credit distinction may no longer seem relevant when most modern currencies are fiat based or pegged in some form to one that is, but the issues it raises haven't gone away. It is impossible to model a fiat currency or foreign investment flows without considering things like political risk or the stability of the banking system. Also the widespread use of derivatives effectively recommoditizes some forms of money - for example, warehouse receipts programs turn commodity deposits into bank deposits against which farmers can withdraw local currency on demand. Egfrank 05:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Good points. My feeling is that the best strategy may be to work on a Monetary economics article, and an improved article on Money supply, extracts of which could then be included in Money. The JEL classification codes list the following headings that could be used as a starting point (not all would be relevant at this stage)
JEL: E4 - Money and Interest Rates
       JEL: E40 - General
       JEL: E41 - Demand for Money
       JEL: E42 - Monetary Systems; Standards; Regimes; Government and the Monetary System
       JEL: E43 - Determination of Interest Rates; Term Structure of Interest Rates
       JEL: E44 - Financial Markets and the Macroeconomy
       JEL: E47 - Forecasting and Simulation
       JEL: E49 - Other
JEL: E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
       JEL: E50 - General
       JEL: E51 - Money Supply; Credit; Money Multipliers
       JEL: E52 - Monetary Policy (Targets, Instruments, and Effects)
       JEL: E58 - Central Banks and Their Policies
       JEL: E59 - Other
How does that sound?JQ 07:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think working on the Money Supply and Monetary Economics articles makes a lot of sense. It will easier to summarize in the money article after writing up the details. BTW were you aware that there is a Monetarism article? Monetary Economics really deserves its own article, but as a temporary move, I've changed its redirect to monetarism.
I'm fine with the JEL classification as headings, but I wonder if we might be better off starting work on a history/mini-lit-review section and then branching out from there? Neither of us are specialists in monetary economics it would give us both an opportunity to review what's out there. Based on my own brief reading so far, one of the challenges we face is that the field itself seems to be in a bit of a transition. (Ah - and people think contributing to Wikipedia is easy :-)) Cheers, Egfrank 05:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it's a challenge. I'll put out some calls for help when I get a moment.JQ 08:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Value of Money

I've taken out "Money is universally valued; so much so, that we take its value as self-evident and in need of no explanation. because I felt it didn't add anything to the article. Anyone object? Leigao84 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have money but you can't use it or spend it then it loses it's value and is no better than a common rock.My mum,dad,and my grandparents on my father's side told me that piece of advice. User:Agent008 3rd April 2008 AD;11:40 PM GMT. —Preceding comment was added at 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

The article, in its current state, does not meet GA criteria. Once necessary changes have been made, it can be renominated. Thank you for your hard work so far, and good luck with future edits. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is getting a lot better

This article on money, over the past year, has gotten a lot better. There is less debate, more attention to fact, and less nonsense. Money is the ultimate expression of free market economics, and this article is being re-defined in a free market way. Part of the reason why some issues cannot be found in text books, is that the concept of money is being continually refined and redefined by society and the marketplace. The world right now is very confused about what money actually is. Can paper even be money, when paper is really a promise to pay money such as gold and silver, and what about today, when today's "paper money" is no longer even a promise to pay money?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.203.112 (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2007

Hmm. Did you just answer your question while asking it? If paper money is not a promise to pay anything else, then doesn't that make it what you imply to be true money? 7;-> However, regardless of that, why would currency backed by specie not be money? Isn't it just a different form of money? (My 2¢--coin, not paper--worth.) --rich<Rich Janis 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)>
SPECIE S/B IN ARTICLE-- Yes, getting better. Regarding the comment "... why would currency backed by specie not be money? ...", I was looking in the article for "specie", was surprised it's not there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.255.151 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Monetary Policy?

In its current reading I think that the article is listing too many things under the heading "Monetary Policy". Some of the actions like raising/lowering taxes or increasing/decreasing spending is rather to consider measures related to Fiscal Policy. --Smallchanges 10:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest to do? (Patricia Op 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Fiat Money and Savings

A suggestion on an interesting point that seems worth mentioning in this article and bringing out in the Fiat money article: As a concept Fiat money tends to work well when individuals acquiring money spend the majority of what they acquire within a relatively short period of time. But when the population at large has a tendency to save a high proportion of their earnings this tends to depress the economy in the long run (a problem China has traditionally had). This, of course, is why laws in some nations restrict inheritance from one generation to the next. All of this, though, would seem counter-intuitive to the average person since, the more money everybody saves, the richer they should be. But obviously, this is not true.

One interesting example of this phenomenon is the spending associated with the retired members of society. Because the money they spend (apart from social security) is derived from goods and services they produced many years in the past, that money is, in effect worthless (i.e. it mostly does not represent any product of any current value to society). Many argue that this is part of the reason that when a large number of people retire the economy becomes depressed. It is also why some people argue that shifting support of retirees to taxes instead of personal savings can actually be beneficial to an economy (controversial but interesting nevertheless).

Anyway, this seems like a significant aspect of fiat money that is less true with commodity money. This aspect is implied but not explicitly brought out in the articles as currently written.

--Mcorazao 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should. There is nothing about fiat money that makes it inherently less representative of products or services of value to a society. Since those things are ultimately what back it, and what it can be traded for (two ways of saying the same thing). There's no fundamental difference between saving fiat money, savings bonds, gold certificates, or gold itself for your retirement. Any problems China has with currency lie in how much currency it prints, not in the fact that people save that currency. The currency is devalued only if you print new stuff to replace the old stuff that is out of circulation, pretending that it was destroyed. But if isn't, then you end up with inflation later when it's eventually put back into circulation. But that's your error. The problem is not savings, but failure to allow for savings in expanding the circulating money supply. SBHarris 05:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


CRITICISM OF MONEY

Just out of curiosity, why is there no section critical of money and money systems? No economic alternatives are suggested either, and a contrast with barter might be worth inclusion too. Any input on this?Oposie (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and add a section. Just make sure you include a reference so we can see where you're getting your info. The problem with barter is that whatever you barter is not likely something you're going to carry around with you, be it watermelons or a promise to do 3 hours of legal work. To trade these, they must all be reduced to paper, barter chits, or some other record, unless you have the world's best memory. And we have a handy name and concept for such records, chits, etc. We call them "money." SBHarris 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a wealth of research and writing critical of money systems. A good place to start would be Thomas Greco's book "Money: Understanding and Creating Alternatives to Legal Tender". 98.235.21.230 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

how much money exists in the world in dollars?

how much money exists in the world in dollars? in Euros? --Emesee (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean how many dollars are circulating today? Or what is the total value of all money (from all countries) outstanding, converted to dollars? The first one is a lot easier to figure out. Also, do you mean physical dollar bills? Or are you thinking of M1 or M2? -FrankTobia (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Content that should be added back in

I looked up the following citation to the U.S. Code about how melting coins is now outlawed. This is a real phenomenon that was recently mentioned on 60 minutes; can we find a place to add it back in?

Melting of coins, in particular pennies, is still a concern in the United States, so much so that the United States Mint has outlawed the practice <ref>[http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title31/31cfr82_main_02.tpl 31 CFR Part 82, 72 FR 61055], also [http://regulations.justia.com/view/93493/ http://regulations.justia.com/view/93493/]</ref>. --JoeLibrarian (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Historic perspective from outsider view

Added this link http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfx7rfr2_211crx6c26k Money-History. This I think compliments the article with a perspective that is different than traditional. skip sievert (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Deferred payment

At present, the article will confuse and mislead the reader, by virtue of treating being the unit of account and being the standard of deferred payment as the same thing.

  • The reader will be confused because, having been told that money as four functions, she then reads of only three.
  • The reader will be misled because the unit of account is not intrinsically the standard of deferred payment, nor vice versa. For example, in nations suffering from hyperinflations, the standard of deferred payment has sometimes remained the national currency, but a foreign currency is used to calculate. That is to say that the agreement has been for Fritz to repay Hans in marks, but the amount of marks to be repaid has been calculated in dollar equivalents.

Some eristic might counter-argue that in such case the nation had no money at all (the eristic claiming that money ex definitione has all four functions), but the fact will remain that the functions themselves are distinct. —SlamDiego←T 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis that, as written, the intro is confusing. The intro mentions four "uses" and then the article has three "economic characteristics". The term "standard of deferred payment" is just jargon and not explanation -- money is neither "deferred" or a "payment". The article correctly makes distinctions in the Types of Money section in relationships forms of various money have to be exchanged with one another. SlamDiego's example above is a bartering transaction and not a monetary one. patsw (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Added a 'criticism of money' section

Some of these ideas were very popular at the beginning of the 20th century and through the thirties and forties. Recently more attention is being given again to non economic systems that are connected with alternative social design (science based).

It was suggested that a 'critical section' as to money be added. Before that section is taken off it should be discussed here. This concept of energy accounting is notable. There was a large movement in the United States and in other areas of the world toward it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29 Technocracy (bureaucratic) skip sievert (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the copy of text of the article non-market economics, which you called "criticism of money". If you can find actual criticism, go ahead, but that article provides an alternative economics, which is closer to monetization of energy than what a rational person would call "non-monetary economics". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic. The whole concept of energy accounting is based on the criticism of money. It is not monetization of energy as this article explains http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate. Please read the article and you may see this point. There is no connection to a monetization of energy... and that was not the point of putting this criticism section here as one way of critiquing money. Not sure of your definition of a rational person... but many rational people are critical of money and its mechanics and a rather large social movement has suggested alternatives to it technocracy movement. So if you don't mind I will be reversing your edit. If you examine this talk page a bit further up this was a suggested idea for the article. skip sievert (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Most of the articles which were redirected to Energy Accounting were about monetization of energy, so I made the assumption that those redirects were valid. Please revert such of those as you are responsible for....
Still, there's no need to copy the article non-market economics into this article. Either non-market economics should be merged here, or this article should summarize the criticisms there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions... lets play with it and get some kind of section for criticism that can include these ideas. Because this one proposed (energy accounting) is well known and getting more attention recently, it seems like a good addition. Feel free to rewrite the section to better effect. I think the non market economic aspect of this as to the article is the least important part. Actual energy accounting perhaps is the interesting aspect. This idea is well thought out, and has been kicked around since 1934 in the Technocracy Study Course. Maybe we could do a mock up section here on the talk page... and edit it together... and perhaps ask others here also for input? This makes for some interesting reading on the subject Technocracy (bureaucratic) skip sievert (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a possible starting point for the new section... please feel free to edit this and with some feed back start a section on the criticism of money.

Criticisms of money

Proposals for a non market economic system called Energy Accounting which uses a post scarcity type of economy as its basis.[1] http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm

The Energy Certificate. (reference)The Technate design as projected, would include such post scarcity aspects as free housing (urbanates), transportation, recreation, and education. In other words free everything, including all consumer products, as a right of citizenship. Energy is used as an accounting system in this proposal and not a reward or punishment societal mechanism. Because some view money as being an unreliable tool of measurement as regards social and ecological concerns, this alternative concept could be an alternative to money in the future.

-end section skip sievert (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A little better, but still too large a fraction of non-market economics and/or Energy Accounting. It's also not really a criticism of money, or even of monetism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes ?... but this is a criticism of money section and I am not sure how more critical than rejecting the idea altogether any thing can get. It is also explained why it is rejected http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate in the foot note or reference that would go into this segment. Energy Accounting also is an articulate program... developed by some of the very top American scientists of the Twentieth century... Technical Alliance. The part about non market economics does not even have to be in there... but it is connected and relevant. This segment is designed to break the flow of the article in the sense that it is a contrary perspective and critical perspective... so it really can not be in accordance with the body of the article. It is a criticism aspect. This uniquely American criticism and suggestion for an alternative economic system would improve this article. I am not exactly sure how you can say It's also not really a criticism of money, or even of monetism..... Really if you care to follow some of the connected links... it is just about the most overt criticism of money I have ever come upon. Technocracy movement skip sievert (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The concept may be a rejection of money, but what you've copied in any of the articles is only an alternative economic system, at best stating why it might be better. There's no real criticism of money or monetarism in any of the articles...yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon but you do not seem to be reading the material presented. You do not seem to understand that this is not a monetary system. It is a different concept which is not only critical of money it rejects money as being not able to work in the future. No real criticism of money ? Huh? This is another reference link that may be good http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/I%20Am%20The%20Price%20System-r.HTM I Am The Price System R. B. Langan Great lakes Technocrat April 1944, # 66 I do not think you read the article on energy accounting http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate... How any one can not read that and think it is not critical of money I am not sure. However this could be an issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN Wikipedia:Ownership of articles... I hope not... but you have not cooperated to create or improve any alternative aspect to this article. Please look up this term ... Price System skip sievert (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of money

The term price system is used to describe any economic system whatsoever that effects its distribution of goods and services by means of goods and services having prices and employing any form of debt tokens, or money. Alternative proposals for a non market economic system called Energy Accounting which uses a post scarcity type of economy as its basis have existed for some time.(reference link) http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm Article on alternative system to money 'energy accounting'</ref>The Technate design as projected by Technocracy Incorporated, would include such post scarcity aspects as free housing (urbanates), transportation, recreation, and education. In other words free everything, including all consumer products, as a right of citizenship. Energy is used as an accounting system in this proposal and not a reward or punishment societal mechanism as money could be considered as being used currently. Because some view money as being an unreliable tool of measurement as regards social and ecological concerns, this alternative concept could be an alternative to money in the future. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/I%20Am%20The%20Price%20System-r.HTM I Am The Price System R. B. Langan Great lakes Technocrat April 1944, # 66 (reference link). skip sievert (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that the best you can do for criticism: "Because some view money as being an unreliable tool of measurement as regards social and ecological concerns, this alternative concept could be an alternative to money in the future."? If so, then "Alternatives (to money)" or "non-monetary economics" would be a better section heading. (Non-monetary economics is probably a better article title than "non-market economics", though.) I also have a vague memory that some forms of communism propose the elimination of money, rather than merely the centralization of control of money, which they call "credit", but I can't find a reference here on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no connection to communism and the issues I have brought up. Communism is a Price System that used the Ruble. I wonder that you may not have read the material presented. This article is about money and it is normal to present a critical view of a subject. Not start a new topic or article within the article.... like your suggestion. Am I talking about an article title concerned with non monetary economics here? I do not think so. I did not start or originate any of these articles. I am not interested in renaming that article either. It is not the issue. I am going to add the section. It is not written in stone. I have asked you to help me write it. Please do... but please follow up on the subject of reading the basic information skip sievert (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You (and most people) are confusing the Marx/Engles theory of communism with Lenin's "implementation" in Russia. I was referring to the former. No actual "implementation" has attempted to eliminate money.
I (carefully) didn't check to see who wrote the identical sections in non-market economics, Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated, and others. Eventually, I may get around to it, and trimming all but one to refer to the section in the remaining aricle. On another note, James P. Hogan's novel Voyage from Yesteryear suggests that a non-monetary system could work in the absence of scarcity. (That also provides a social system which created appropriate personal incentives for people to actually do something.) But, still, all we have proposed for content here are alternatives to money, rather than criticism of money. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well... thanks for leaving the section now. I think it is referenced well. It would seem to me that this essay article, published some time ago, could be considered a scathing negative review of money ... within the context of the addition (Criticism of money). http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/I%20Am%20The%20Price%20System-r.HTM I Am The Price System R. B. Langan Great lakes Technocrat April 1944, # 66.... and this reference point also points toward a critical assessment of money that is pretty stark... # ^ Stabile, Donald R. "Veblen and the Political Economy of the Engineer: the radical thinker and engineering leaders came to technocratic ideas at the same time," American Journal of Economics and Sociology (45:1) 1986, 43-44..... Any way... feel free to edit what I have done if interested... I am going to look at it some more and maybe I can think of a different perspective to come at it. I am not that familiar with Communism as you have written about it. I do know that it is a reactionary concept and a rejection of Capitalism... but since both are similar to each other (price systems) at least as practiced... I was not thinking of adding any communist aspect in the criticism of money section. I know the Communist ideas glorified human labor... and that in a way it is a spin off of Adam Smith in that way, at least as practiced. The main argument against 18th and 19th century economics as near as I can tell... is that purchasing power is destroyed by Technology and particularly energy conversion. Jobs are eliminated by mechanization. It is true that a human can put out about 1/20th of a horse power or about 33 watts... and a machine, even a simple machine like a refrigerator uses about a quarter horse power... and works 24 hours a day.. without complaint, hence productivity is measured in machine and not human power any more. - That article http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificateon Energy Accounting by Fezer also seems to take money to task in a very overt way.

Interesting aside as far as science fiction... the creator of Star Trek.. G.R. was in telephone contact with the head quarters of Technocracy Incorporated on a regular basis and was friends with one of the office managers there in the 60's. I think his name was Berge, now deceased. That is a story I heard by someone in that organization. skip sievert (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Energy Certificate essay by Fezer. An article on energy accounting as proposed by Technocracy Inc. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm Article on alternative system to money 'energy accounting'

Alternatives to money

I found some interesting information that I would like to integrate Arthur. This page has a lot of associated information that expands further what I was describing... to a degree that I was unaware of till now. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Biophysical economics - Encyclopedia of Earth -- Is this site an appropriate site to use as a reference source... citation source ? And if so.... I was thinking of naming some scientific names... and basic concepts .. expanding on the thermodynamic mention I did and making perhaps a paragraph of material from this huge reference. Your opinion? I am for sure going to use some of this information for some other related wikipedia sites dealing more with Technocratic ideas. skip sievert (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Ecological economics article? However, Wikis (including other Wikimedia Wikis) cannot be used as WP:RSs on Wikipedia, unless "conventionally" edited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this link expands information. Another admin. ed. said it looks allright to use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wafulz#citation_reference_link skip sievert (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Payment in energy merely makes energy money. Energy is practically infinitely divisible (you ain't buying anything with a quanta), energy can be stored, physicists know it can be a unit of account, and it could be generally accepted. While it wouldn't have the same characteristics as fiat money, it's still money. Relaxing the "generally accepted" condition just makes it barter. Energy also has the unfavorable restriction that there is not necessarily free disposal, which causes problems on the electrical grid sometimes. Note that barter isn't the only alternative to money - most communities (such as households) resolve debts in terms of social obligations (eg "I'll wash the dishes for you if you take the kids to practice for me if I need you to"). Technically, this relaxes the "unit of account" measure and the "store of value" as without account, you cant tell if the value is stored. This system of social obligations dominated feudal societies, and really only broke down when specialization of labor required us to transact with more people than we could maintain social obligations with. In non-market economies, such as the Soviet Union, obligation systems (eg blat (Russia)) arose when money and markets couldn't operate effectively. If pressed, I could probably source the papers or books from undergrad economics for the empirics, but the logic should be clear to anyone. Another system, which violates many of the principles of economics (namely sub-game perfect equilibria) is what I'd call the "token and respect trading." If you've ever been to another country, you've probably had a situation where you're meeting some stranger, and you trade tokens more for souvenir or sentimental value, despite their market value being grossly disproportional. Don't know if I can source that theory though... Bagsc (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I should have made clear, elsewhere, that, whatever Energy Accounting is, it is not the use of energy as money. It really is an alternative (but not a criticism of) money as a concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree Arthur... Energy Accounting as projected by the Technical Alliance is an energy accounting system only.. and not a monetary system. It is a way to keep track of resources and consumption... but not an economic reward or punishment system. It could replace a price system but is not a price system although it is a type of economy.skip sievert (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The "criticism of money" subsection presents a criticism of national income accounting, not money. The "alternatives to money" section describes a monetary system even if its proponents describe it otherwise. It is also not true that "most monetary systems rely on growth." "Technocracy, Inc" and its publications are not reliable sources, so in effect both of these sections are unsourced. Both the "criticism" and "alternatives" sections should, in my view, be deleted. Sked123 (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Not too sure what you mean by national income accounting but that does not apply to the subject you are mentioning. You may want to read this wiki article.. Energy Accounting It is not income. It is an energy accounting system, not a reward and punishment system of economic money. Please follow and read the links... which are not just links to material produced by technocracy Inc. All monetary systems currently rely on growth... could you tell me one that does not please? The sections are extremely well sourced, although perhaps you are not familiar with the linked and cited concepts. Consensus leaves these sections in. It is valuable information. Links such as this http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm ECONOMY AND THERMODYNAMICS... and this http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Biophysical economics - Encyclopedia of Earth. If only the very most mainstream economics ideas and concepts are used over and over.. it really defeats the purpose of showing well rounded and sometimes critical information. skip sievert (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the "criticism" section is pretty much meaningless, but the Energy Accounting is not a montary system with energy as the medium of exchange, as I thought at first. I also agree that Technocracy, Inc is not a reliable source except as to what they think Energy Accounting is, so we need a further source that they are notable (reliability is not in question). (My addition of a fictional non-monetary "economy" in Voyage from Yesteryear was not intended as the best example, merely one I have in my personal library.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The "criticism" section essentially consists of a quote from someone complaining that GNP does not represent a physical quantity. That poorly-aimed criticism is not of money per se but rather of GNP, a concept in national income accounting. The "alternatives" section describes a monetary system even if its proponents refuse to recognize it as such: "energy certificates" are money, by definition. No monetary system "relies on growth." None of this material describes notable areas of economic thought, mainstream or otherwise, nor is any of it adequately sourced. These sections should be deleted. Sked123 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. The "energy certificates" would be non-transferrable. Doesn't that distinguish them from "money"? (I agree that "relies on growth" is bogus, but it's what they describe it as.) I'm not sure the fictional content is notable, but we do have a post scarcity article, most of which appears to describe systems without anything we could call "money". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The certificates are still a medium of exchange, albeit one with numerous legal restrictions. But the more important point is none of this is notable, nor is any of it adequately sourced. Sked123 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There are not any legal restrictions. There is no judiciary in this system, and contracts between people can not be made. Please read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_system
Price system - Energy Accounting does not use commodity valuation methods. Certificates can not be earned. It is an accounting system only and a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-market_economics
Non-market economics system. You may not be aware of these ideas... but that does not mean that these ideas do not exist. Quote... Sked..The "criticism" section essentially consists of a quote from someone complaining that GNP does not represent a physical quantity. Are you aware of who that person is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert
M. King Hubbert ... or aware of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophysical_economics
Thermoeconomics - or this http://books.google.com/books?id=wFcQjW5_QzoC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=Soddy,+Frederick+(1922).+Cartesian+Economics:+The+Bearing+of+Physical+Science+upon+State+Stewardship.&source=web&ots=T7T4IRcFli&sig=8QHaf3WzqNfj3ozEB8tPvfwBnTw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA29,M1
A Survey of Ecological Economics: or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics
Heterodox economics ... or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiocrats
Physiocrats or this???? http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics
or this http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm ECONOMY AND THERMODYNAMICS... perhaps you could read or skim through these... for more understanding of this subject. I will source the sections better... although they are really sourced pretty well now. I will put on outside information that talks directly about this group ... TechInc and Howard Scott and http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology
quote.... Sked.. But the more important point is none of this is notable end quote. You are saying that one of the most significant social movements of the 20th. century, and which is getting a lot of attention currently... is not notable. Your wrong. It is... and the ideas.... although they may not conform to what you probably consider Mainstream economics are interesting and are good information even though it may be a little different from the usual 18th. century economics you may be used to (Adam Smith I am guessing.skip sievert (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the links above are irrelevant. Again, "Technocracy" is not notable as a school of economic thought, mainstream or otherwise. An editor who believes otherwise needs to cite several reliable sources explicitly stating otherwise and, in the context of this article, demonstrate Technocracy's criticisms of money using reliable sources. There is nothing above clarifying why the criticism from Hubbert is of money per se and not GNP, and even if Hubbert had criticized money that would still not be notable unless many others had remarked on that criticism in reliable sources.

On this basis, I have deleted the criticism and alternatives sections. Sked123 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you read any of the information in the links above. Quote Sked... Most of the links above are irrelevant. How could that be? You are saying that these articles and old citation links used and accepted on wikipedia are not true... because you say so. What your saying here is not really making sense as to the issues... you are not looking at the actual information. Also you do not seem to understand the subject of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophysical_economics
Thermoeconomics where it came from and what it means. You also are not understanding what a Price System is apparently. Please leave the section as is. I am going to add outside info. as said above to notability on group discussed. You are not improving the article by removing the information. You are narrowing it. See talk section.. bottom of page.skip sievert (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of those links are completely irrelevant because they do not describe criticisms of, or alternatives to, money. Neither biophysical economics nor thermoeconomics are criticisms of money, and neither is notable enough to be included here even if they were. Ecological economics and other "heterodox" schools of thought are, again, not generally ("ever" I would think is actually accurate) critical of money, so bringing them up is not relevant.
Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. The only reliable source is the cite to a paper in American Journal of Economics and Psychology, but that paper does not as advertised claim that, "some in the scientific community have viewed money as being an unreliable tool of measurement as regards social and ecological concerns," and even if that were true it would be a criticism of pricing, not money per se.
I believe skipsievert confuses criticism of market-based economies with criticism of money. It is not true that non-market economies do not in general use money. Ecological economics and other "heterodox" approaches do not in general oppose money per se and they are not relevant.
Again, this material is not notable and it is not adequately sourced. There is definitely no "consensus" that this material belongs in this article. Sked123 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: I have tried twice to remove this material. It obviously ought to be removed, as it is not notable and not adequately sourced (it's not even correct, for that matter), and the sole editor who thinks it belongs here has provided nothing resembling a rationale which is consistent with WP policy. Sked123 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Also noted. Quote.. Sked.. The only reliable source is the cite to a paper in American Journal of Economics and Psychology, You really think that is the only reliable source. Mmmm afraid I do not follow you on that. Also quote Sked..I believe skipsievert confuses criticism of market-based economies with criticism of money. Guess that market based economies use money do they not? So I guess I do not follow what you are saying there either. The area discussing this now is at the bottom of the page. It is not obvious that this material ought to be removed. Not at all. That is your opinion and it appears you do not want to investigate the links. You are not saying how this is fringe material, the reason you gave in your edit. It is not fringe material. You have not looked at the citations of notability to the information, which were given. Further comments on the bottom of the page please to address issues up to date. Is Technocracy not notable... in regard to their proposals ? Well to you maybe not... but to the vast majority of people that edit articles and made articles on this subject on wikipedia .. yes it is notable.skip sievert (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

future of money?

Would this be an interesting addition toward the end of the article? The future of Money? What about this link and some of this information... and related links off this link? http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2008/06/17/singularity-economics-and-the-future-of-money/ Singularity economics and the future of money. skip sievert (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


`

Claims by User:Protomoney

The false claim that "Money is not just a scarce good, or a good used in transactions, or a weight metric. One of Money's essential properties is that it has a mark of the authority that coins it." needs to be sourced. It's clearly untrue. A fixed weight of a precious metal need only have an assay mark to constitute "commodity money".

I'm not tagging only that statement, because he's added a number of other unsourced statements, and I'm heading away from my computer for most of the day, shortly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an unhistorical and unsourced statement to assume that several objects used in transactions are money, without these objects to have an authority's mark. But I agree with this: "A fixed weight of a precious metal need only have an assay mark engraved by an authority, in order to constitute "commodity money". Protomoney (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
What are the rest unsourced statements? Lets discuss them... Protomoney (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
They're all unsourced, although a number of them are alsmost certainly correct. However, Wikipedia requires sources.
And I'd almost accept the statement, provided that "authority" is clearly redefined to mean anyone whose (assay) statements are accepted, not necessarily an "official" authority. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you and I added the "authority" clarification. It doesnt matter if it is an official authority, or an unofficial, or a person or a society. What matters, and what distinguishes money from a regular medium of exchange is the mark. Money without the mark is not money. Thats my point, and I think it is not reasonable to assume that money can be defined without the mark. Protomoney (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... sounds to me like you're talking about 'currency' as distinct from 'money'. What about M3 in the money supply? It's clearly money, but is it ever treated as such? No marks were used to 'create' it. It's entirely digital. What about electronic money, that use gold or silver as a base? The denomination may be exchanged for currency, but it doesn't necessarily dictate that it is not money in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.157.44 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont know how to explain it further. I am talking about a mark, either a physical or digital one or whatever. But in history, and now days, in all kind and forms of money,WE ALWAYS KNOW WHO (OR WHAT) PRODUCES AND COINS IT. Is that clear? Claims of the type: This anonymous jewel, or this shell, or this weight metric or this plant (!!!) was used as money are unhistorical and meaningless. There were medium of exchange, yes, but NOT money Protomoney (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Money is not, and has never been, "anonymous".We always know which authority (or who) is behind it. There was always someone who controlled the circulation and the number of money objects, there was always someone who was using it in order to receive taxes from it. Any object without the above properties cannot be considered as money Protomoney (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This is your private definition, but it is not generally used. In economics, "money" is a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. None of these requires any mark or authority. SBHarris 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not my private definition...The definition continues by saying: "features of money are that it should have a stable value and be difficult to counterfeit."....because there is an authority who controls it...it is obvious!!! Protomoney (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what the word "desirable" means? It doesn't mean "necessary". SBHarris 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what the word "Other desirable features" means? It means that we have already 3 desirable features, and here they come the fourth and the fifth. Protomoney (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily as "other desirable features" can mean either: "other (desirable) features, or other (desirable features). You can't tell which, in English. The first means "other features, that are desirable." In context, this is what is meant, or else otherwise the first part is not a definition, which it pretends to be. Definitions do not give "desirable" qualities, they give necessary and essential qualities. SBHarris 00:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

History section

I did a redo of the history section. I think it may be more comprehensible now possibly. I still have to make some footnotes and or citation links. Here it is so far. The Emergence of money

The use of barter like methods may date back to at least 100,000 years ago. To organize production and to distribute goods and services among their populations, pre-market economies relied on tradition, top-down command, or community cooperation. Relations of reciprocity and/or redistribution substituted for market exchange.

Trading in red ochre is attested in Swaziland. Shell jewellery in the form of strung beads also dates back to this period and had the basic attributes needed of commodity money.

The Shekel referred to an ancient unit of weight and currency. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC. and referred to a specific mass of barley which related other values in a metric. A barley/shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight... just as the British Pound was originally a unit denominating a one pound mass of silver.

According to Herodotus, and most modern scholars, the Lydians were the first people to introduce the use of gold and silver Coin. It is thought that these first stamped coins were minted around 650-600 BC. A stater coin was made in the stater (trite) denomination. To complement the stater, fractions were made: the trite (third), the hekte (sixth), and so forth in lower denominations.

The name of Croesus of Lydia became synonymous with wealth in antiquity. Sardis was renowned as a beautiful city. Around 550 BC, Croesus contributed money for the construction of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world.

The first banknotes were used in China in the 7th century, and the first in Europe was issued by Stockholms Banco in 1661.

Thoughts and ideas for the next phase? skip sievert (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how to explain it further. Money is not an anonymous shell, plant, jewel or weight metric. Money has a mark of who coins it, either a physical or digital one or whatever. But in history, and now days, in all kind and forms of money,WE ALWAYS KNOW WHO PRODUCES IT. Is that clear? Claims of the type: This jewel, or this shell, or this weight metric was used as money are unhistorical and meaningless. There were medium of exchange, yes, but NOT money Protomoney (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is unhistorical to consider an object used in transactions as money, without this object to have the mark of the person, of the society or of the authority which coined it. Money is not, and has never been, "anonymous". We always know which authority (or who) is behind it.There was always someone who controlled the circulation and the number of money objects, there was always someone who was using it in order to receive taxes from it. An object without having all of the above properties cannot be considered as money.Protomoney (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No. See any economics text under "money". Money is defined by function, not authority or marking. Typical of definitions is this: [2] Money is any set of assets used to buy goods and services, and has three key characteristics. First, money is a medium of exchange: it offers buyers and sellers a mutually recognized means of payment for exchanging goods and services. Second, money is a unit of account, or a yardstick for measuring the value of goods and services to sellers and buyers. Third, money is a store of value: it can be reliably saved, stored and predictably used once retrieved. Other desirable features of money are that it should have a stable value and be difficult to counterfeit.

Note that the three characteristics given are all functional. They don't preclude gains of barley or cigarettes being used for money.SBHarris 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you finally admit it! "it should have a stable value and be difficult to counterfeit."!!! why???? because there is someone who controls it, there is always some kind of authority or trustees that want to keep it in a stable value and not let others to counterfeit it! This is money. It is piece of cake to understand that, it is obvious. I wonder why you still disagree with me..Protomoney (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it only says it's a desirable property, not that you can't have money otherwise. But in any case, no mark or authority is needed there, either. Counterfeiting a cigarette or grain of barley is extremely difficult, since the "acid test" is in the smoking or eating, and a sample "assay" of any larger quanity can be done. SBHarris 00:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what the word "Other desirable features" means? It means that we have already three desirable features, and here they come the fourth and the fifth. Protomoney (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If you consider a grain of barley as money, then almost everything that is used in commerce as medium of exchange is money too. I think your definition (or maybe your interpretation of the definition) confuses and obfuscates. Money is NOT a grain of barley, everybody knows that! :-) Protomoney (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, everybody doesn't know that. In prisons everywhere (particularly prisoner of war camps) cigarettes have been used as money. And as you well know, measures of grain were the first money-- the grain being given directly, as a rice tax to the Emperor, for example, long before stand-ins were used. And yes, any commodity can be used as "money". It then becomes commodity money. The use makes it money, nothing else. SBHarris 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Look. Lets be reasonable. The text you are pointing is not the Bible, is it? The point is that everybody knows that a grain of barley or a cigarette is not money. In the rare case that are used as money (for the cigarettes into the jail for example, or for the grains in a period of great huger) there is always someone who controls their number. As long as this definition (or maybe your interpretation the definition) make us believe that uncontrollable and anonymous grains or cigarettes are money, then there must be some mistake, somewhere. Protomoney (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You can look at any definition of "money" in any general econonomics text. Pick one up. And no, there doesn't need to be someone who controls the amounts. Money, like trade, arises naturally in context, and does not require either authority, or government. All it requires is agreement between two parties. Even representative money doesn't require authority or government: all it requires is that one party trust the other enough to take an IOU for goods, instead of goods themselves. In that case, the IOU functions as money. You know, you could learn a lot about money if you're just read the article here on money, and its sub-articles. Failing that, read an econ book. SBHarris 01:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You just mentioned another important property of money. Taxes. Money is something that is controlled by an authority (or person or society) and which is used in order to receive taxes. I wonder why this is not mentioned in the definition. Protomoney (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No, money which is authorized as usable to pay taxes is a type of credit money called legal tender. It's not the only type of money. Example: Cuban money is legal tender in Cuba, which means you can pay your taxes there with it. You can't pay in US dollars. However, you can use US dollars for anything else in Cuba. They function as money, but they're not legal tender. SBHarris 01:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can use dollars in Cuba. A Dollar in Cuba remains money, because either in Cuba or anywhere else in the world it is still controlled by US government, used for US taxation and protected from counterfeit. So a dollar in Cuba is not legal tender but still holds money's properties, so it is money. You can also use, lets say, a tooth paste or cigarettes in Cuba as your medium of exchange. If you ask anyone, he can assure you that a tooth paste is not money. If we interpret the definition of money your way, everything could be named money. Protomoney (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You are a patient person Sbharris and your information is correct. Good job of explaining some basic aspects of money to Proto-money. I would suggest that Sbharris is not only the rhetorical victor here as to this interpretation of what money actually is... but the literal scholarly victor ... objective victor .. and literal factual presenting victor. What he is saying is objective... accurate.. conforms with neutral thinking also on this subject. Proto-money... you may want to suspend your judgment and read this file. http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfx7rfr2_211crx6c26k Money-History&Energy Accounting-TNAT The North American Technate. ... not as a reference for the article in particular and I am not suggesting including material from it ... but just as a general reference to the way money works... where it came from.. etc. Excerpt: The masses in Mesopotamia, however, seldom dealt in such money (silver). It was simply too precious. To pay their bills, water carriers, estate workers, fishers, and farmers relied on more modest forms of money. Copper, tin, lead, and above all, barley. It was the cheap commodity money. Barley functioned in ancient Mesopotamia like small change in later systems, like the bronze currencies in the Hellenistic period.

Also the area that explains Sumeria and barley and how barley was used in conjunction to weight on scales relative to silver... and other precious things like bronze lead etc in the first civil society.

It looks to me like my edit should be restored... made before the last one in the history section. This current edit below in the History of Money section by proto-money :

It is unhistorical to consider an object used in transactions as money, without this object to have the mark of the person, of the society or of the authority which coined it. Money is not, and has never been, "anonymous". We always knew which authority (or who) was behind it.There was always someone who controlled the circulation and the number of money objects, there was always someone who was using it in order to receive taxes from it. Any object without the above properties cannot be considered as money.

I am afraid this borders on nonsense or gibberish... and should be removed immediately. skip sievert (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply think you are wrong, and that you somehow want us to believe that everything used as a medium or exchange can be named money. Protomoney (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this a very interesting article[3] by Reid Goldsborough. As you can see other people also disagree the way we are.

Reid Goldsborough wrote: "There's no reason that fully typed coins couldn't have been the first coins. Stone and clay seals with pictorial designs predated coins, and some scholars have argued, persuasively, that the idea of stamping coins with designs developed from the use of seals to designate ownership or authority.[20]Whereas in Lydia the transition appears to have been from typed seals to typed coins, in Ionia it was from typeless bullion to striated and geometric bullion to striated bullion with nascent types within the striations to fully typed coins. Money in the form of ingots, rings, coils, and other pieces of precious-metal bullion, typically silver, emerged as civilization was emerging in Mesopotamia and Egypt,[21]though unlike coins these had no mark of authority. Some adhered to a weight standard and had a fixed exchange value, some didn't. The typeless western Anatolian electrum precoins are more akin to these bullion pieces such as these than they are to coins. Numerous other items have performed one or more of the roles of money -- store of wealth, medium of exchange, and standard of value -- before and after Lydian Lions. These items include but aren't limited to seashells, beads, obsidian (volcanic glass), disk-shaped stones, bamboo, grain, salt, tobacco, cigarettes, liquor, tea, cocoa beans, honey, butter, dried fish, spears, swords, arrows and arrowheads, axes and axeheads, knives, guns, bullets, empty bullet cartridges, hoes, spades, nails, plastic, paper, animal skins, cloth, clothing, blankets, gemstones, jewelry, feathers, whale teeth, shark teeth, ivory, bone, cattle, camels, slaves, and wives".

According your definition, women are also money!!! :-) Protomoney (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure what your argument is here. What ever it is it appears to be moot. You are going against common sense and scholarly writing on this subject. It has been patiently explained to you by Sbharris, some of the finer points. How is it that even the article you are referring to proves our points and disproves yours...? and yet you desire your edit... that honestly just is nonsense or gibberish in regard to this subject now.... here is a quote from the article you are suggesting....

Obsidian, a type of volcanic glass or hardened lava, is one of many materials that were used as money before coins and afterward. (Photo courtesy of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.)

No one here is denying where coined money came from (Lydia) and that it was stamped a certain way. I mention that in my history of money section in the money article.

I sincerely hope that an admin editor comes here and reverses your edit proto-money. Right now it does not conform to objective ... factual... neutral... information. skip sievert (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an admin issue. May I suggest an article RfC to bring in more comments, presumably including some from experts? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well... I do not see how this is a content dispute because one user is in complete contradiction to accepted norms of the subject. This person appears to be going completely against the present consensus... and against any kind of logic as to the subject itself as it is described even in the literature they are providing. Arthur.... this edit as far as I can tell by proto-money is not a content dispute... it is bad information wrongly thought out ... to a purpose that does not make any kind of sense... if there is one (purpose).

Can you make sense of this?

It is unhistorical to consider an object used in transactions as money, without this object to have the mark of the person, of the society or of the authority which coined it. Money is not, and has never been, "anonymous". We always knew which authority (or who) was behind it.There was always someone who controlled the circulation and the number of money objects, there was always someone who was using it in order to receive taxes from it. Any object without the above properties cannot be considered as money. current edit.

Arthur could you make the Rfd? Or, as I am making a case, just revert the edit, or ask another admin ed. to do it that is not involved, but could just read through the contention... for reasons mentioned... currently, because the present edit is gibberish or nonsense?skip sievert (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, although you can probably prepare the RfC as well as I. (It will be a few hours, at least.) I'm not an expert; I merely put this article on my watchlist as a result of some income tax protester vandalism, and have been attempting to remove the more blatant vandalism. The discussion will be in a new section of this talk page; the RfC will just bring it to the attention of more people, possibly including experts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks... This springs to mind Arthur, concerning the forementioned edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_instructional_and_presumptuous_language, but the larger issue I think is that the current edit defies logic.. neutrality.. and is completely contradicted by the information even offered up by the editor that made the edit. I am trying to figure out the reasoning behind the history of money edit.. and can not.skip sievert (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What I think is that your edit defies logic, but anyway. In the article I show you, you can see that some experts may agree with my opinion, while some others agree with yours. I have no problem in that, we can write your opinion nearby mine and saying: "Other people believe...bla bla bla". Is that ok? Protomoney (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


I am sorry but the section as written does not make sense. Now either. Croesus never conquered Lydia as it is written now. He was the king there. As far as experts agreeing with your opinion.. I do not think so. Also I am not going by my opinion... I am going by the facts. This should not be about your opinion either. So no, that is not O.K.

Croesus conquered Ionia. Britannica says "...He conquered the Greeks of mainland Ionia" [4]. See where Ionia[5] and Lydia[6] are, to understand it. Protomoney (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As to your opinion here about as to whether money can consist of material with intrinsic value without a certifying authority, or whether it requires a "trusted" certifying authority the very question does not really make sense and I would call the question a non issue.. a non starter... and possibly gibberish... and no it should not be in an article, which is trying to explain actual ideas as to the subject of the history of money.

Too sum it up, I do think that what you have written should not be in the edit... and that for starters, the edit that I made.. in full, without the additions you have made, should be restored so that then I can add some citations and footnotes etc. Right now the edit there is not accurate... does not make sense... and is contradictory to any history of money I have ever seen. skip sievert (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Protomoney should read the article on Commodity money, which has more on this point. Yes, use of commodity money is very similar to barter, but the types of commodities used as "moneys" provide an automatic unit of account (a grain of barley or a cigarette are natural accounting units). Also, very few bartered items are universally accepted in value by everyone in a society, but some are (barley being an example). But nearly universal acceptance is required for the commodity to serve as a medium of exchange. And so on. The article as it stands is pretty good, I think. SBHarris 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Instead of reading, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a decent resource. I bet a nickel that this point will still be disputed, however, despite the excellent sources provided.--Gregalton (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Money is clearly broader than only that which has the mark of a certifying authority. End of story. Economists have used the broader understanding at least since Menger's 1883 book Untersuchungen uber die Methode der Socialwissenschaftern und der Politischen Oekonomie insbesondere (Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig) which was published in English in 1963 under the title Problems of economics and sociology, and more recently (1996) under the more accurately translated title Investigations into the method of the social sciences. In the 1996 edition, on my bookshelf, a chapter on "Unintended Results of Historical Development" (Part 3, Chap 2) primary section is entitled "The origin of money." Menger's economic theory of the origin of money is explicitly a bottom-up, spontaneous order (Hayek's "grown order") outcome of human social interaction: it will occur de facto in human societies independent of any de jure legislation or certification by a state authority. N2e (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Redone history of money section

Redone,... with a couple of pictures... and lots of reference citations for the new material. Here is an example of a citation link that I made that now gets the ideas across (I hope) for the Lion Stater from Lydia being the first ... what is considered... marked with a picture or writing coin. Here is the link http://rg.ancients.info/lion/article.html Goldsborough, Reid. "World's First Coin". I also added a few other citation refs. skip sievert (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

It is funny that the reference you are using in order to support your theory is the link I show you. There are also other references you have to read, like this one [7]. I also recommend you to buy books that say things opposite to the references, and read them.Protomoney (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can tell Protomoney you have pretty much destroyed all the good work that has been done on this article. You have a strange sense of history . It is not neutral. It is like you are not even in the right topic here. Nothing you are doing makes particular sense. The information about One of the first Greek coins were the"Swastika"[8] ,,,,, look sorta of crazy or gibberish or nonsense like. skip sievert (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

From Goldsborough article "What is clear is that none was issued in anywhere near the same quantity as Lydian Lions. According to Karwiese, in an impressive exercise in inventory, Lydian electrum coins featuring a lion's head comprised 21.2 percent of the 2,057 early electrum pieces known to him from published hoards and auction and sales catalogs, while Lydian electrum fractions featuring a lion's paw comprised 4.6 percent, for a total of 25.7 percent for Lydian Lion electrum coins. The next largest group of early electrum pieces were typeless precoins, at 10.8 percent. Coins with a swastika pattern comprised 8.8 percent. The remaining 54.7 percent were spread out over the 300 or so other early electrum types." Protomoney (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You have taken off the interesting pictures that were here previously. It looks pretty non sense like and really bad now. You have completely gone against the previous consensus when you were pretty much told by a number of people not to do what you are doing because it was not factual or accurate or neutral or etc. etc. etc.. The article looks and feels like hell now. I hope someone reverts it back to my last edit when by all agreement here, the main people working on this agreed that it looked good and contained good information. Protomoney.... why are you doing this? You ruined the article. skip sievert (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that we disagree. Lets put both opinions in the article please, until the issue is resolved. Protomoney (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice addition of sources. Unfortunately, they are all clearly the history of coinage, with no evidence that the authors believe the history of coinage is the history of "money". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
When people were saying "money", and until the invention of banknotes, they always meant "coins". Protomoney (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. But more importantly, you're the only one editing this article who believes it to be the case. You may be the only one editing this article who believes that (any) experts believe it to be the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Bring a single ancient text (from the roman period and until 1661 when the invention of banknotes took place) written in any language that mentions "money-monnaie-moneta" without the meaning of money to be identical to "coins", and you will be right. Protomoney (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if accurate, it's not relevant. You're confusing the history of the word "money" with the history of what is now known as "money". Completely different concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
History is "was it was always known", not "what it is known now". For example, "history of democracy" includes "direct democracy" although nowadays democracy means republic.Protomoney (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The experts I provided reference to, do believe that anonymous objects cannot be considered to be coins. Do you think that they believe that anonymous objects can be considered to be money? I don't think so. This does not make sense. Protomoney (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(←–)

  • "History of democracy" includes "direct democracy" because the term now known as "democracy" includes "direct democracy", although there are few (if any) modern examples.
  • Are your "experts" considered experts in the history of money, or just the history of coinage. (We have a number of scholars quoted who recognize a difference.)
  • And you have brought up a good question. Do they believe that anonymous objects can be money?
  • — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We agree that money, until 1661, always meant "coins". Lets find out what is now known as "money". I think the best way to solve this is by doing a survey. Get some red ochre, a jewel, a weight metric, a random anonymous object, a coin, a banknote, a credit card and a gold bar, go down the street and ask 100 random people.
"Is this red ochre money?" 100% no, 0% yes
"Is this jewel money?" 100% no, 0% yes
"Is this weight metric money?" 100% no, 0% yes
"Is this anonymous object money" 100% no, 0% yes
"Is this coin money?" 0% no, 100% yes
"Is this banknote money?" 0% no, 100% yes
"Is this credit card money?" 50% yes, 50% no
"Is this gold bar money?" 50% yes, 50% no
It is obvious what money was, until 1661. It is obvious what is now known as "money". The reason why some experts want to convince us that money is something else is really questionable. Protomoney (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No... it is not questionable. Money is any thing you want it to be that has perceived value. That included barley or silver or shells. Your work on this article is nonsense based or opinion based and has nothing to do with history ... neutrality or well rounded opinion even. You have completely gone against the others that formed a consensus that your edits are not just unhelpful they are inaccurate... misleading.. and not really even connected. skip sievert (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Money is not something that has real value. Money is a useless thing, having the trusted authority's mark. Money is something we believe it has value, or something we are forced by law to believe it has value, while in reality it has not any value. Greeks called money "numisma", which derives from the words nomos (law) and nomizo (I think so, I suppose, I reckon). Protomoney (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Money is anything THEY want it to be, and its perceived value resides solely on the mark. My definition totally contradicts yours. We are using the same word but each one gives to the word a different significance. This is the source of our disagreement. Protomoney (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That may be what you mean by "money", but cigarettes (in prison), chocolate (during WWII in Europe), and other commodities without a mark also serve as money. Those have implied marks, I suppose, so it doesn't fully contradict your unsourced assertions, but unstamped ingots are more like money than current US gold (commemorative) coins. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Example

This is an example of something that does not make sense. A Protomoney (the editor)... edit.

When money was invented in Greeκ area, silver was used to create coins. Silver was at that time a rather useless metal used only in jewels, but it was scarce and difficult to counterfeit. Αlthough now days silver is considered as a commodity, it was not a commodity at the time. Silver coins represented the old commodity money of iron sticks, a useful metal used in war (see Heraion of Argos). The mark of the king or of the Democracy was used as assurance that these useless silver tokens were iron's replacements[1]. In that sense, money was a representative and not a commodity thing from the beginning. end quote... ok.... ugh... thats it.

Could someone revert the whole article back to where he was not editing 24 hours ago or a couple days ago now I guess. And please Protomoney, since it is evident that you do not write English so well ... but even more an issue.. you do not understand much of the historical aspects of this subject... plus, you are completely at odds with what is given information about basic aspects of ideas connected with money... would you cease and desist your current paste in contributions that make no sense. skip sievert (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is about the point where the article lost it, and it was a while back... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money&diff=prev&oldid=230114054 Money - ... So went back to that consensus point as discussed with another involved editor.skip sievert (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of money & Alternatives to money

I will source these better although see the section above. To remove that information diminishes the article. It is notable. It is a major branch of thinking as to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-market_economics Non-market economics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity Post scarcity concepts. Just because it does not fit into Mainstream economics... apparently what you know most about... does not mean that this is not important information... which gives the article a little more depth. Read this please. http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm ECONOMY AND THERMODYNAMICS and this... http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Biophysical economics and please allow some more references to be put in ... although that section is well referenced now. The person that removed the information may not be familiar with these now mainstream ideas... Energy Accounting invented by Technocracy Incorporated but that does not mean they are not notable and significant.

Added this link now into to this area discussed http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm ECONOMY AND THERMODYNAMICS. This is an excerpt..

For that we should reach a consensus about value, by weighting advisedly all the variables. Some idea like that certainly has occurred as soon the Law of Conservation of Energy was established in 1870. I cannot perform a thorough search, but I would suggest a starting point in the writings of Stuart Mill, Spencer and Balfour Stewart.

Explicitly, a similar idea occurred to Frederick Soddy in 1922. He wrote that the price of a merchandise reflect, directly or not, the energy invested in its production. (Today, he would say available energy). The same idea was proposed by Howard Scott during the Great Depression of the 30's. And now it surfaces with the ecological movement since the 60's, while emphasizing the erroneous use of planet's resources. An indirect consequence of this idea is the analysis of industrial processes by net energy use, taking into account all the energy involved since the extraction of natural resources and the "primary" energy. This approach is gaining adepts.

I added the wiki links. Repeating over and over that something is not notable and then deleting valuable and interesting information does not further knowledge of the topic in discussion. Money. There is now a ref. citation (In both sections) that mentions in detail the most notable of the groups that were related to the introduction of the concepts of Energy Accounting and more wiki article information links also.

Sked... you apparently have not read any of the info provided... here is another excerpt from one of the reference citations. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Biophysical economics - Encyclopedia of Earth

The use of energy as a unifying concept for social, political and economic analysis reached a zenith with the technocratic movement in the USA and Canada during the 1930s. Led by the flamboyant and energetic Howard Scott, the Technocracy movement began in 1918 as a group called the Technical Alliance. The Alliance conducted an industrial survey of North America in which economic parameters were measured in energy units rather than dollars. Although the Alliance lasted only a few years, the Depression provided fertile ground for the re-emergence of the technocratic movement which used depressed economic conditions as a rallying point for their call for a complete overhaul of existing economic and political institutions. In 1921, Howard Scott and others formed Technocracy, Inc., and in conjunction with the Industrial Engineering Department at Columbia University, began an empirical analysis of production and employment in North America in energy units. The association with a prestigious university like Columbia combined with Scott’s flamboyant relationship with the press made Technocracy internationally famous. skip sievert (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you just reverted the information after even more sourcing was put in. You called it fringe material. I would say that because you are unfamiliar or do not understand this material that does not make it fringe material. You may be a classically trained economist... but that does not mean that only mainstream economics has a right to be presented to the public. You have diminished the information in the article. I reverted you. You have not apparently read any of the information provided. Please take a look at this article also before calling this fringe Technocracy (bureaucratic)... skip sievert (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sked and have reverted. None of this really has anything to do with money. Presumably it can be covered (and has been covered) in other worthy articles.--Gregalton (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You can agree with Sked all you like but Sked is wrong as to his fringe theory... and has not taken the time to even look at the material presented. You reverted and said it was irrelevant, perhaps it is to you... but that is not much of an argument. None really. It is an alternative to money. That was the heading. Also a criticism of money. That was the heading. Two people that agree without exploring the information (from all appearance), is not a consensus. Right now it only tells me that you are against this material because you disagree somehow with it, and perhaps think it is a good idea for others that your opinion... which is not notable, should be followed. skip sievert (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoa there. If you're out to make people hostile by being insulting, it's working. If you want to build consensus, do so by trying to convince rather than attacking. Wikipedia asks for opinions of readers, and my opinion - "notable" or not - is that this has no place in this article. Your opinion may be that we're both wrong, and stating it that way is not working to convince.--Gregalton (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, dear. It appears that my attempts to encourage Skip to follow Wikipedia guidelines have failed, just as Elonka's attempts to mentor other SPA editors. I'm tempted to withdraw my opposition to Elonka....
As for my opinion, I don't see anything in the #criticisms section which could be saved, but something from post scarcity should be in #Alternatives. I believe that Technocracy, Inc. has a notable fringe viewpoint, but there could be some debate as to whether it's notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Lets not make this about if I am a nice guy or not... or a person that is being insulting which I have not been and have no desire to be. It is akin to the So when did you stop beating your wife double negative. I am arguing content. It has nothing to do with opinion. If content is stripped from articles.. how is that good..?. It is not being hostile to present an argument. I was pointing out that an editor agreeing with another editor that does not seem involved or interested in the material presented.... for that editor to say something is irrelevant (the reason given) and delete material without trying to change... edit.. perhaps improve the material, or even discuss it is not really an engaged act. Arthur has tried to edit.. change.. or improve the information. The other two recent editors have not. While one editor said that at least part of the material should remain (Arthur) from the beginning, and that was ignored... now Gregalton also deleted the information on post scarcity from the Alternatives section that should have been left... at the least discussed.... No real argument has been made for getting rid of alternative information. Except someone thinks its fringe. This makes the article poorer... and really not presenting well rounded info. This defeats the purpose of trying to inform people. As far as Elonka's attempts to mentor other SPA editors... I fail to see what this has to do with any thing in this current discussion. Whether you withdraw your opposition ... which is apparently said here... as a personal joke of some kind... is resoundingly not funny or clever, as near as I can tell, It appears that my attempts to encourage Skip to follow Wikipedia guidelines.. well if that is an issue maybe you should point out what and where etc... and not resort to framing things that negatively and without any context. The issue is properly neutral editing that brings more relevant information to the article instead of less. Right? skip sievert (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Money/Archive_3&oldid=1137018381"