Talk:Money/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

reference #5, fiat money form encyclopedia.com

the reference makes no mention of legal obligations of fiat money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.173.102 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

how much money is rased in the eu

it doesnt tell you about the money in eu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.242.52 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about GDP or tax rates? South Bay (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not fully substantiated

excised the following: By law, the refusal of an offer to pay in legal tender extinguishes the debt in the same way acceptance does.

This appears to refer to the law of one particular country, which? It probably doesn't hold everywhere. My citation note got reverted, so I'm pulling the text instead. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, don't just erase a statement that has a citation. Instead do a little work to find out what the citation refers to. Or add a {clear} tag or {needs additional ref} tag or something. The statement is true in US law, and doubtless the legal tender laws of many countries (or else what good is the idea of a "legal tender"?). SBHarris 16:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not entirely true in the US. For example, governments agencies will (frequently) not accept payment of fines in cash, and the fine is not extinguished. I'm sure the IRS will not accept cash in payment of income taxes, and the tax debt is not extinguished. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the IRS does accept cash at most of its local offices-- there's only a problem if you want to send it through the mail. [1] Heck, the IRS didn't even accept credit or debit cards until 1997. Before that, it was check only, and if you didn't have a bank account and thus no checks, what else COULD you do but go to a branch IRS office and pay with currency?

Having said this, the legal tender laws do have an "out" for business who don't want to accept cash-- if they publically post a notice that they don't, before the debt is incurred, they are exempt. The IRS at one time was in this position, and a few people paid them in pennies (in protest). The IRS bit the bullet, took the pennies, and then put up the notice for coins. If all IRS offices in the country refused FRNs, however, I think they'd be in real legal trouble, however, for exactly the reasons given. The taxpayer could make a strong argument that the government had broken its own laws. And besides, if the government attached forclosed a taxpayer's property in liu of a debt, it would be fairly hypocritical, because THOSE auctions absolutly will take cash (I mean FRNs). Some will take nothing else. SBHarris 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the IRS does or must accept FRNs. If the customer doesn't have a bank account, he can pay some nominal amount ($3 to $5) at a bank to purchase a bank check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Moolah

Somebody please do this because I don't know how. If you type in "Moolah" into the search bar you get redirected to this article (for Money). This needs to be changed and "Moolah" needs to have its own page. This page should say that Moolah is a slang term for Money. Then, if you know about it you can write about the origin of the term Moolah, otherwise simply leave it for somebody to fill in in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.74.43 (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. SBHarris 17:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Main image

Goto www.pcmadvisors.net to learn all about money and investing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobnzeny (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Money is more than anything else in this universe, the most important relative,best friend,equal to god,more than soul,spirit,dignity ---sarvesh sharma

The current lead image is neither clear nor informative. In thumbnail size it is hard to make out which currency is shown. The notes and coins are folded or overlapped. It would be better to clearly show a example of a specific physical money, as done in the German Wikipedia: [2]. I changed the image to be a U.S. $20 bill, but this was reverted with the comment 'internationalize lead image'. The Brazilian real is no more international than the U.S. dollar. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead images in most articles use images of a specific example of the article subject, usually one which is in some way the most notable. The skyscraper is illustrated with a picture of the Burj Dubai, the tallest example. The flag article is illustrated with the Danish flag, the oldest example. The U.S. currency is more widely used than the Brazilian Real. By any measure, the U.S. dollar is more notable than the Brazilian Real. Secondly, the image used is not a good illustration of the Brazilian Real. For these reasons, I will remove the current image and replace it with an image of the U.S. $20 bill, unless there are any objections. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

jjjjjjjjjjj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12sa (talk • contribs) 10:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) The current lead image is neither clear nor informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12sa (talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The article's lead image is a $20 Federal Reserve Note issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which is a privately owned and controlled corporation. While the notes that the Bank issues are "legal tender" they are not "money", as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution. It would be better to use an image of real money, such as the international 1 Euro coin. I will change the lead image that Euro coin if there are no objections. JasonCupertino (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, as usual, in regard FRNs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I can't for the life of me think why somebody would think a Euro coin made of some base metals, and just as much fiat money as anything, is less "money" than an FRN. They need to read this article!

The real problem here is that "money" is intangible. It can be (and usually is) just 1's and 0's in the correct register of some bank computer. How do we show a picture of that? We're forced to show some dramatic representation of one kind of money, just as the article on energy shows a bolt of lightning. But energy itself is an idea that exists in the minds of physicists. It is "something" that is conserved, but it's hard to say just what "it" is. Money is very similar! It's vaguely conserved (but not perfectly), and you can count it, and it can be converted to many forms, all of which have "value" (whatever that is-- it's an aspect of human interests and desires, which are themselves wooley and subjective concepts). All these are manifestations of a single Platonic ideal which has to do with counting "desire", and which is hard to pin down. Money is a store of value, but value is just subjective desire. A store of subjective desire??

Example: In the desert, a canteen of water can be "money". The thirstier everybody gets, the more "money" it is! There was a wonderful Twilight Zone episode about that, The Rip Van Winkle Caper, where a drink of water gets traded for more and more bars of gold, as the supply of water dwindles. And the gold itself turns out to be worthless.... SBHarris 16:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please go to [3] and scroll down and look at the samples of Euro paper money. Those are not banknotes redeemable for money; they are money in and of themselves. However, that is not the situation in the United States. The United States currency notes and the Federal Reserve Notes authorized by the U.S. Congress are not money, they are notes payable in money (that's why the have the word "Note" on them). Those notes circulate as the equivalent of money and are "legal tender" only because they are payable in money. I have no objection to changing the lead image to an image of Euro paper money but the current image of a Federal Reserve Note does not belong there. It's technically wrong and that wrong should be set right. JasonCupertino (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And why don't YOU go to Euro banknotes to see many photos of Euro banknotes, all which which are signed by the President of the European Bank, since banknotes from that bank is what they are.SBHarris 02:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many definitions of "money"; FRNs meet almost all of them, and are considered to be money by real people and real economists. There are only some fringe Constitutional scholars who note that they may not meet the definition of money in the US Constitution. Regardless, they still meet the definition in this article:

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

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My main problem with using a Federal Reserve Note as the lead image in this article is that it reinforces a public misconception about Federal Reserve Notes. Wikipedia should not reinforce people's misconceptions. The image should be changed to a coin or to paper currency that is legally money in the jurisdiction where it originated. JasonCupertino (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A Federal reserve note is legally money in the jurisidiction where it originated. "Legal tender" is as close as you can get to making something "legally money." It is certainly not true that FRNs are legal tender only because they can be exchanged for money. They are legal tender ONLY because the government made them so by law, by fiat. End of sentence, period. In fact, you cannot exchange them at a bank for any kind of "money" which is more worthy of the name, than they are. Coins exist as fiat money in exactly the same legal way that other legal tenders do. Coins ARE legal tenders, with value fixed by fiat. Unlike FRNs (and the previous United States Notes), coins just don't SAY they are legal tender. But they are. SBHarris 00:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Exchanging Federal Reserve Notes at a retail bank for United States dollars is done at the discretion of the bank. Retail banks have no statutory obligation to make such an exchange. In contrast, redeeming Federal Reserve Notes is an entirely different matter. Section 411 of Title 12 of the United States Code provides that Federal Reserve Notes "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank". The designation of Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender does not change the simple fact that they are promissory notes issued by private companies. And the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable should put you on notice that those notes are "promissory notes" (the underlying promise is to redeem the notes on demand).

As a matter of federal law, Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable and United States currency notes are "payable to bearer", and that is why they have the word "note" on them! Those notes are evidence of indebtedness; they are not "money" as the term money is used in the U.S. Constitution. But when "money" in the broadest sense of that term is applied to Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes then the reader is misled. To avoid that undesirable result, please be careful to explain to the reader that Federal Reserve Notes are statutorily redeemable promissory notes and evidence of indebtedness of the issuing Federal Reserve Bank, and that United States Notes are bills of credit and a means of borrowing money, not creating it. In summary, notes that are redeemable/payable are debts, not constitutionally authorized "money", and it is misleading to refer to them as money, so don't do it! JasonCupertino (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to go and read this for the problem of what exactly is meant by "lawful money". It's never actually defined in law (and certainly NOT defined as "gold or silver coin" in any law which still has force and is not superceeded. There IS evidence that once upon a time, "lawful money" referred to that part of money which was not specifically designated as "legal tender," such as the varieties spoken of in the link (gold and silver coin and also clearinghouse certificates). All legal tender notes (the "greenback" United States Notes, at the beginning, before FRNs existed) were "lawful money." But at the time, there was some "lawful money" that did not have general "legal tender," status, so it was designated separately AS "lawful money." For the most powerful example, before FDR's removal of gold from circulation in 1933, the same Title you refer to said that FRNs could be redeemed in "gold or lawful money"! That implies that GOLD (here meaning gold coin of the US) was not automatically considered "lawful money" at that time, or otherwise the law would not have repeated itself. Rather, it was clear that "lawful money" was being used to refer to non-previous metal things that had been DEFINED as lawful money, in the days before all US currency was defined as a legal tender (which automatically makes it a lawful money). Fastforward to now, where all US currency (both paper and coin, after 1933) has been conferred with legal tender status, and is therefore "lawful money." If the phrase means anything. If otherwise, what CAN it mean? You can't claim that only gold or silver are "lawful money," because there is US law that suggests that before 1933, at least gold had to be named separately from "lawful money." I think "lawful money" meant "any money made money by act of law." But I admit (and so do the scholars) that the phrase and law is not clear. At the same time, it does NOT come down on the goldbug side. Sorry. SBHarris 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement that U.S. Federal Reserve notes are not "money" is incorrect. Indeed, from a legal standpoint the statement is legally frivolous. The federal courts have uniformly stated that the argument that Federal Reserve notes are not "money" is without merit. See, e.g., the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Edgar v. Inland Steel Co.: "Plaintiffs argue, inter alia [. . . .] that federal reserve notes are not money. Every court that has considered any of these claims has found them to be without merit." Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1278 n.4 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). See also Harrell v. Commissioner, 75 T.C.M. (CCH) 2458, T.C. Memo. 1998-207 (1998).

As the United States Tax Court stated in its decision in the case of Crowley v. Commissioner: "Much of the trial of this case was consumed by petitioner's constitutional and other legal arguments, particularly his arguments that Federal Reserve Notes are not money [ . . . .] All of these arguments raised at trial and in petitioner's post-trial briefs are frivolous and have been rejected by this and other courts so many times that citation of the case law is unnecessary." Crowley v. Commissioner, 43 T.C.M. (CCH) 1137, T.C. Memo. 1982-211 (1982).

See also the text of the decision of the U.S. Tax Court in Stephens v. Commissioner: "We think it is unnecessary to address the specifics of petitioners' argument because it suffers from the same basic flaw of all arguments which attempt to raise the relationship of Federal Reserve notes to gold as a bar, in whole or in part, to the income tax, i.e., the contention that Federal Reserve notes are not money. It is clear that the courts have consistently held that Federal Reserve notes constitute legal tender — money — and income at face value. See Hatfield v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 895, 897 (1977); Sibla v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 422, 430-431 (1977), affd. without discussion of the issue 611 F. 2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1980); Gajewski v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 181, 193-194 (1976), affd. without opinion 578 F. 2d 1383 (8th Cir. 1978); Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68, 84 (1975), affd. without opinion 559 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977); Leitch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-75, on appeal (9th Cir. June 7, 1979)." Stephens v. Commissioner, 41 T.C.M. (CCH) 964, T.C. Memo. 1981-85 (1981).

Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are more court cases: United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 963 (1976) (the argument that the taxpayer was paid in Federal Reserve notes that were "not lawful money" and that the taxpayer therefore had no income upon which he could be taxed was rejected and was ruled to be frivolous); and United States v. Gardiner, 531 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1976) (the argument that the taxpayer was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service because he did not receive "money" in 1970 and 1971 as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were "not lawful money" was ruled to be without merit). Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Harris: People can refer to those papers as "Euro banknotes" but if those so-called banknotes are not redeemable/payable then it is incorrect to refer to them as banknotes (i.e., promissory notes issued by a bank). If there is no underlying promise to pay then it is inappropriate to describe them as "notes" of any sort. It is my understanding that "Euro banknotes" are not redeemable or payable in money (e.g., coins, or silver bullion, or gold bullion, etc.) and that "Euro banknotes" are legally money, rather than notes redeemable for money. If Euro banknotes are redeemable or payable then please inform me that this is the case and refer me to a reliable source for that information. Thank you. JasonCupertino (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A bank note is a promisory note from the bank to pay or redeem, but nothing says the note must be redeemed for a fixed amount of gold or silver. A bank note is a claim against the bank's assets and can be "redeemed" for anything the bank owns. I'm sure that if the bank has been stuck with forclosed houses, it will let you buy those houses with its notes. Also any coins it has (although they will be of base metal these days) and issues of its own stock (shares of itself). It will also take back its own notes in exchange for YOUR debts (money you owe the bank, even if the bank originally loaned you that money in silver coin, 50 years ago). "Money" is a store of value, and it trades against goods and services, not just specie. And so long as you can trade your banknotes for any good or service you want, it might as well BE specie. What do you care? The number of gallons of gas you can get for a gram of gold will vary from day to day anyway, and so what if the number of gallons of gas you can get with a banknote does also? You can't eat, wear, or find shelter in gold. Like all precious metals, it's a middleman that can be entirely done without, and the concept of money is not hurt in the slightest by doing so. SBHarris 03:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

American money should be used instead of Euros. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Owen214 (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

References

The first sentence 'Money is any object or record, that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context.[1][2][3]' ought o be modified as 'Money is a medium of Exchange that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts/taxes in a given country or socio-economic context.[1][2][3]and a measure of value i.e., Yard Stick of Measurement of Wealth. Market determines/sets value/price of various goods and services using money as the measure. The next sentence 'The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally, a standard of deferred payment.[4][5]' ought to be modified as in addition to being Medium of Exchange and Measure of value its additional functions are a unit of account; a store of value; and a standard of deferred payment.[4][5]' (Hrsiddique (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)) The following sentence is inaccurate: "Fiat money is without intrinsic use value as a physical commodity, and derives its value by being declared by a government to be legal tender;" Generally speaking, a government is not the only institution that can give money its intrinsic use value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsotnik (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence just quoted is correct. It does not say that the government gives intrinsic value to fiat money. Payments through other means (like cheques or credit cards) than government backed bank notes can be refused. Janosabel (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The point Gsotnik makes and the problem with the sentence is that money can derive its value from being recognized as tender (legal or not) by social institutions other than government. You don't need to have government to have money.

The following sentence is too narrow: "The money supply of a country consists of currency (banknotes and coins) and demand deposits or 'bank money' (the balance held in checking accounts and savings accounts)." It does not take into account that money supplies do not have to be "of a country."

Are you referring to money borrowed from other countries and brought in by visitors from other countries?. Does not that end up in "checking accounts and savings accounts"? If anything, the statement is inaccurate as it does not clearly separate the stock of notes and coins (legal tender) in circulation (less than 3 per cent of the money supply) from the much larger and arbitrary amount of credit (debt) issued by the banking system. Janosabel (talk)

Add history?

Do you think this should be added here, somewhere else, or nowhere? David C. Korten explains in “When Corporations Rule the World”: “Most of the world has now been drawn so far into the globalized economy that few of us has had the opportunity to experience any other way of living…” “In many colonized countries, the imposition of taxes payable only in cash was used to force people into the money economy… In Vietnam, the French imposed taxes on salt, opium, and alcohol. The British in Sudan taxed crops, animals, houses, and households. In their West African colonies, the French punished tax evasion by holding wives & children hostage, whipping men, burning huts, and leaving people tied up without food for several days…” 69.228.196.30 (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need money? Do we all like being controlled by money? Does money = life, or should life = life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.65.26 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect definition

the opening paragraph states that money is an object, but this is not so. By the logic of the article, any money in my account would just be a figment of my imagination. I would rewrite it, but the semi-protected status makes me suspicious that my work would be immediately reverted and forgotten. The main changes I would make would be to define money as "the abstraction of value" and I would point out that physical forms of money have little use for anything else but to signify value. Owen214 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be most helpful to start at the beginning, so to speak, by way of the etymology of the word "money" (Latin: moneta "mint, coinage,"). Having said that, money clearly has a dualistic nature in terms of its being both symbol and an object of (ascribed) intrinsic value that are founded upon common, socialized beliefs as such.

Reference: "Money's place in society" (The British Journal of Sociology © 1980 The London School of Economics and Political Science). Abstract: http://www.jstor.org/pss/589688 (full article available via JSTOR). --70.112.150.168 (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you'd read to the third paragraph of the lede you'd have hit this. But I've now moved it up to the very tippy top part of the definition. Money can be object, or any kind of secure record, that serves as a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally, a standard of deferred payment. In fact, money objects themselves, if representative money or fiat money, merely serve as a kind of convenient "secure record." Once security is in place, 1's and 0's in computer files do the same job, and these days, more of the job. So that should go right up front. I've removed a bit from paragraph 3 that said the same thing.SBHarris 18:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A good effort on your part, as most encyclopedia articles have the etymology right up front, but Owen214's point -- which I and my citation support -- that money is both object and symbol is still missed. Money is substantially symbolic as well as being actual/objective. --70.112.150.168 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it now to what seems right. I tried to keep it as succinct and clear as possible. Owen214 (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the objects which people commonly call "money" just as symbolic as digits in a bank account computer file? Coins, currency, and bank account records are not the money themselves, but the symbolic representation of money. To call a quarter or dime "money" is like saying that the word "tiger" is a real live tiger. In actuality money is a set of social relations, which these symbols represent. The symbol (e.g. coin, bank account figure, etc) absent the relations is worthless and impotent. The relations without the symbols still works as money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.4.41 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Money is just merely something that we've created in order to function as a society. As we all know it is not real but it is the form of exchange we choose to use. Burn all the money in the world nothing would happen. (People would freak out but in actuality nothing really changes.) FYI, at the end of history section, Nixon Shock of 1971 should be included. I still find it astonishing that money is based off of nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent3224 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The moneychanger

Does anybody have a figure for converting francs to US$ in 1911? If so, can you add it purse numbers here & here? If there's a template, use it? And if there is, will you also ping my talk with it? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:36 03:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Why there is no Criticism section in this article? It has not been prove scientifically that the way money influences society is positive. Actually it has never worked, but OK I accept that this issue can/must deserve a deep discussion. There are material out there in other Wikipedia articles. Why not to link them? I will do it when I have more time. Ledjorge (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fiscal policy vs monetary policy

The section below discusses monetary policy. However, increasing or lowering government borrowing or spending is fiscal policy not monetary policy. This section actually contradicts the Wikipedia article on monetary policy. Further, government spending or borrowing is a role of the government and not the central bank. The two bullets should be removed.

Governments and central banks have taken both regulatory and free market approaches to monetary policy. Some of the tools used to control the money supply include:

   * changing the interest rate at which the central bank loans money to (or borrows money from) the commercial banks
   * currency purchases or sales
   * increasing or lowering government borrowing
   * increasing or lowering government spending
   * manipulation of exchange rates
   * raising or lowering bank reserve requirements
   * regulation or prohibition of private currencies
   * taxation or tax breaks on imports or exports of capital into a country

In the US, the Federal Reserve is responsible for controlling the money supply, while in the Euro area the respective institution is the European Central Bank. Other central banks with significant impact on global finances are the Bank of Japan, People's Bank of China and the Bank of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.172.133 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.111.129.93, 29 May 2011

I think the 3rd paragraph should be changed to highlight the role of bank money (and, by implication, debt) in the supply of money. My proposed wording is -

"The money supply of a country consists of currency (banknotes and coins) and Commercial bank money (the balance held in checking accounts and savings accounts). Bank money usually forms by far the larger part of the money supply of a country - over 97% in most countries - and is created when banks make loans (see Money creation)."

Notes - The 97% figure appears in numerous UK sources (Positive Money, New Economics Foundation, “The Little Money Book” by David Boyle, and lecture notes from the School of Economic Science (London). The reference to “most countries” comes from a lecture by Prof Werner (University of Southampton)

88.111.129.93 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, pretty much. I left out the 97% figure, since I couldn't find a reference for "most countries", but added the requested emphasis. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.111.136.253, 10 June 2011

Thank you for the recent changes to this page. Would you please reconsider the further amendment I proposed to go at the end of paragraph 3, viz -

"Bank money accounts for over 97% of money supply (UK), and is created when banks make loans (see Money creation)"

My citation for the 97% is derived from the Bank of Englands statistics http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mfsd/iadb/NewIntermed.asp Table LPMAUYN gives "M4" as £2,157bn and table LPWBF82 gives "notes and coins" as £59bn. ie currency is 2.7% of total money in the UK

88.111.136.253 (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT: Although money is indeed created when a bank makes a loan, this sentence suggests, by implication, that the 97% of UK money that isn't notes and coins was created that way. Not necessarily so!

These days, when so much money transfer is electronic, the amount of currency ("notes and coins") needed for society to function, simply becomes less and less over time. This has nothing to do with money creation; the total amount of money could be constant, and currency would still shrink. A salary might be directly deposited in a bank account, the government takes electronic tax payments, electronically withholds taxes from salaries, and even refunds withheld taxes to accounts, electronically. The government, in such cases, is free to simply print fewer notes (and even mint fewer coins) to replace that those that naturally wear out (though this process is more important with banknotes, since the wear-out time for common notes is only 18 months to 3 years or so). That process of moving money from currency to digital doesn't create money, it merely transforms it. So don't use the figures of fraction of money "as currency" to mean anything more than what they directly say.

In addition, the government has ways of actually creating money that don't involve the printing of more notes. In fact, open market operations generally are NOT that crude, and DO result in the creation of money, but it's electronic money. That frees the number of circulating notes to simply represent the needed number of physical transactions involving currency, but for no other purpose. SBHarris 19:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done per Sbharris, the sentence was phrased rather ambiguously too. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:09pm • 10:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The history of money section is written with what appears to be undue influence of the history of commodity money without any reference to debt.

The following quote is from A. Mitchell Innes in the Banking Law Journal, May 1913 called, "What is Money" in regards to the development of money as a "commodity":

"So universal is the belief in these theories among economists that they have grown to be considered almost as axioms which hardly require proof, and nothing is more noticeable in economic works than the scant historical evidence on which they rest, and the absence of critical examination of their worth. Broadly speaking these doctrines may be said to rest on the word of Adam Smith, backed up by a few passages from Homer and Aristotle and the writings of travelers in primitive lands. But modern research in the domain of commercial history and numismatics, and especially recent discoveries in Babylonia, have brought to light a mass of evidence which was not available to the earlier economists, and in the light of which it may be positively stated that none of these theories rest on a solid basis of historical proof—that in fact they are false."

http://www.ces.org.za/docs/what%20is%20money.htm

The records demonstrate that the earliest forms of money is actually debt, and the following is a quote from the same source:

"We are here fortunately on solid historical ground. From the earliest days of which we have historical records, we are in the presence of a law of debt, and when we shall find, as we surely shall, records of ages still earlier than that of the great king Hamurabi, who compiled his code of the laws of Babylonia 2000 years B. C., we shall, I doubt not, still find traces of the same law. The sanctity of an obligation is, indeed, the foundation of all societies not only in all times, but at all stages of civilization; and the idea that to those whom, we are accustomed to call savages, credit is unknown and only barter is used, is without foundation. From the merchant of China to the Redskin of America; from the Arab of the desert to the Hottentot of South Africa or the Maori of New Zealand, debts and credits are equally familiar to all, and the breaking of the pledged word, or the refusal to carry put an obligation is held equally disgraceful." Chdouglas (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"

Aristotle's "good money"

I am requesting that a new section be added (probably as Section 1.2) listing Aristotle's characteristics of what makes a "good money". Besides the characteristics listed below, I've seen other such as easily recognizable, not easily counterfeited, and consistency (ie one unit of money is the same as another unit) which are desirable in "good money".

http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/money_aristotle_050120092

Within such a frame work, Aristotle defined the characteristics of a good form of money – which must be:

• Durable: Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time;
• Portable: Good money needs to hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size;
• Divisible: Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be "fungible", defined as "being freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."
• Intrinsically Valuable: This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself, starting with rarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What is this section about discussing about money or what

I have reviewed the comments but what are they all implying.Money takes so many forms ,shapes and sizes.There are money banks,money tree,money money and i could think of others like [redacted] and so forth.Does trying to make a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.69.27 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article. It is not the place to promote your money-making blog. Please stop adding spam links. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

origin of money

I've been reading about the chartalist theory on the origin of money specifically. I thought it might be nice to put a line or two in the "history" section to quickly outline current theories. For example, the chartalist theory is that money originated as debt to a ruling class. First it was notches on a piece of wood or stone in a temple, and later became "coins" which were essentially "tax-tokens", that held value simply because the ruling class would accept them as payment for tax or tribute. There are some academic papers about this.

I think the consensus on the origin of money is that it emerged organically. That rather than bartering for goods, people started to use a particular good that was widely used or valued, rare in nature, and was easier to carry around (such as small weights of gold). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jraudhi (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin

There should definitely be a section describing new forms of money. I can understand a non comprehensive inclusion of digital currencies because they are simply fiat currencies parleyed across a digital medium. However, protocols like bitcoin allow money to only exit in cyberspace which allows for some classic limitations to be lifted. Never in the history of time has the sending of money across a geographical divide not meant that you need to trust a 3rd party which of course then is susceptible to regulatory capture. Analogous to the printing press having allowed the free exchange knowledge which was highly regulated by the Christian church (who unsuccessfully tried to impose the death penalty for publishing after the printing press came to Europe), new forms of currency coming to fruition this very day allow for the free exchange of wealth across distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.254.175.224 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is breathless advocacy and comes across as such in the article. It certainly does not have an encyclopedic style, and I think is probably factually wrong. At the very least it needs some citations. 94.31.32.54 (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

Merge with Currency? Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

God, no. Read the two and find out the difference. SBHarris 04:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 November 2012

Money exists as an unreal concept, as any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country. ( "money" is gold and silver, where currency is paper bills or electronic records of debt. ) Currency is NOT Money. 74.235.230.251 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - Begoon ^talk 02:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Swiss Wir virtual money

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "Wir" meaning "we" the Swiss, and the most famous European virtual money. The first experience of complementary waste originated in the country known just by banks already in 1929th year. Sixteen Swiss entrepreneurs have joined and established "wir" currency that had begun to function 1934th year. Today "wir" represents an important economic factor in the whole of the Swiss Confederation and, according to the Croatian daily Novi list, that virtual money operates about 80,000 Swiss companies, a quarter of small and medium enterprises. Currency "wir" has a bank based in Basel, which employs hundreds of workers as wir to build houses, sales offices, flats, etc. The difference between the Swiss franc and the wir is that wir not convertible!78.2.74.90 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

100,000 years?

The article says: "The use of barter-like methods may date back to at least 100,000 years ago, though there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter" and cites Mauss. Mauss says nothing or the sort. http://www.archive.org/stream/giftformsfunctio00maus#page/36 Requesting removal / rephrasing. CLShortFuse (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal Tender Laws - Taxes Drive Money

There is a serious error in the introduction to this article. It says, Money "...derives its value by being declared by a government to be legal tender;" This is not true. Money has value and is accepted in payment for goods & services because the state declares that all taxes must be paid in the nation's currency. Taxes drive money not legal tender laws. Vilhelmo (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. The law gives currency value by making it a legal tender (offering) to settle all debt, both public and private. That means if I eat a meal at your US restaurant and offer you US dollars to pay and you refuse, I can leave after leaving bills on the table. You can't arrest me for theft of services simply because you regard the bills as worthless. It's doesn't matter what you think of their value. That has nothing to do with taxes. The fact that I can eat your food and offer you dollars or nothing, gives those dollars objective value to me (and I don't really care about you). Taxation issues are irrelevent. Guns and police and jails (as always) are all that is relevent. You can demand gold till the cows come home, but if I've already eaten, you must take dollars or nothing. If you call the cops, they will side with me and not you, and that (as usual) is all that counts. SBHarris 02:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not, it is reality. Legal tender laws are completely irrelevant, and the Canadian dollar isn't even backed by them. Nobody is *required* to accept the CAD, they can settle transactions in any way they desire. You see this in practice: the USD trades freely in many parts of Canada. Why does the CAD have value then, if nobody is required to have it? Why, simply because it's the only thing that can be used to pay Canadian taxes. Because there's always a large base of Canadian taxpayers willing to accept CAD so that they can own property and stay out of jail, it's always going to have worth.

Encyclopedia Britannica used to be clear on this point:

If the government announces its readiness to accept a certain means of payment in settlement of taxes, taxpayers will be willing to accept this means of payment because they can use it to pay taxes. Everyone else will then be willing to accept it because they can use it to buy things from the taxpayers, or to pay debts to them, or to make payments to others who have to make payments to the taxpayers, and so on. (Lerner, 1946, p. 693)

We've since gone backwards on this myth of money as an emergent market phenomena. Historical review does not back the myth - historically, if state money collapses we resort to barter or even grains of rice (certainly not hard to verify gold), and nor does the theory that "legal tender laws" make us all accept currency (if that were true why does the CAD have value?). Tax-driven money is logical, backed by review, and evident in practice. If you make people require pieces of paper to own property or earn an income in your country, they *will* seek it out. It's that simple. 124.169.100.131 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Heck, even the father of economics Adam Smith knew this to be the case back in 1776. Straight from the Wealth of Nations: A prince, who should enact that a certain proportion of his taxes should be paid in a paper money of a certain kind, might thereby give a certain value to this paper money. (Smith, 1776, p. 312). It's unbelievable that Wikipedia doesn't even mention in the entire page that the one unique feature about fiat money is that it can be used to pay taxes to the state, something for which there is no substitute. It's what gives it value, yet this page would have you believe that it has value "because the government says it does". Absurd. 124.169.100.131 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Broken Link

Check out reference No.30. The link 'Shredded & mutilated: Mutilated Currency' is broken. You can change it to 'http://www.debtconsolidation.com.au/a-complete-guide-to-mutilated-currency'. This article provides a complete insight about Mutilated Currency and what you can do about it. NancyDC (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Got it; replaced with an archived version of the original. EllenCT (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Measure of value

Measure of value incomplete - currently states:

Measure of value Money acts as a standard measure and common denomination of trade. It is thus a basis for quoting and bargaining of prices. It is necessary for developing efficient accounting systems. But its most important usage is as a method for comparing the values of dissimilar objects.

Suggest adding: Money is a market measure of value and as such is the product of a human value measure and a scarcity measure. Things that are abundant have zero scarcity, and as such (like oxygen in the air), however important they are to people, have no monetary value. Thus there is a clear disjunct between market value (money) and human value. This disjunct has many profound implications. One set of implications relate to the lack of incentive within market measures of value to produce abundance for all, and in fact active disincentives to do so, despite our technical capacity to do so. Another set of implications is that market incentives cannot deal with ecological abundance in any meaningful way. Both of these sets of functions have profound implication on the use of market measures of value in governance.

You must cite a reliable source for these statements. Wikipedia does not accept original research. --Drm310 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the section 'Measure of Value' as an obvious duplication of 'Unit of Account'. The previous section 'Standard of deferred payment' at least acknowledged that this function is generally subsumed under money's three main functions. Simplulo (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Cowry shells as money

The article would benefit from having these two links added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypraea_moneta and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypraea_annulus. That way, readers will not find themselves obliged to run additional searches to find out what these shells look like. -- Brothernight (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous illustrations already in use in cowrie and shell money if you want to add one. The subject is complex and many species were used in many ways in different places. So picking one is harder than you think. SBHarris 00:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

fiat money

Fiat money or fiat currency is money whose value is not derived from any intrinsic value or guarantee that it can be converted into a valuable commodity (such as gold). Instead, it has value only by government order (fiat). Usually, the government declares the fiat currency (typically notes and coins from a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve System in the U.S.) to be legal tender, making it unlawful to not accept the fiat currency as a means of repayment for all debts, public and private.

This paragraph implies that the in the U.S. it is unlawful not to accept fiat currency as a means of repaying private debt. This is not supported by the two references, and I do not believe it to be true unless so ordered by a judge. However, since I am not certain and cannot find any solid evidence one way or the other, I thought it was worthy of discussion.

If there is a debt, then fiat money must be accepted. Assuming fiat money functions as legal tender, refusal of fiat money for payment of a debt is considered payment or extinguishment of that debt. I don't have proper citations nor am I a lawyer nor do I have much money, but more information about this distinction of transaction types - binding and non-binding - can be found in the wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat - there was also an interesting google result on paying a large debt in pennies which is certain to further explore this fine-line between fiat money and legal tender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.235.73.31 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. Dollar and subdivisions thereof down to the Penny is fiat money. It is money because it is so defined by the Federal Government. The Dollar can take the form of pocket money, i.e., currency and coinage created by the Federal Reserve, or virtual money that exists in a myriad of banking and other accounts. The ultimate source of U.S. virtual money is the National Debt, created by U.S. Treasury borrowing. Every Dollar borrowed by the Treasury -- all $17 trillion of it -- is in circulation somewhere in the world and will remain so until the U.S. debt is paid. Paying a debt in Pennies is perfectly legal, albeit inconvenient, because Pennies are legal tender defined as money by the Federal government. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin's userbase no longer "small"

In the section [Money#Electronic_or_digital] bitcoin is mentioned as having a small user-base. Many estimates of the number of bitcoin users place it close to 1 million. One company which hosts bitcoin wallets claims to have a million users with wallets and over 25,000 merchants as of the end of February [4]. It is generally hard to estimate the number of bitcoin users due to the pseudo-anonymity but here one person obtains several reasonable estimates [5]. Estimates of the bitcoin market cap also place it as the world's 89th largest currency [6]. It seems to me that the user-base can't be considered small anymore. Dhorks (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Money Creation

The Bank of England has recently come out with an important explanation of how money is created. I inserted the point plus reference in the article, and it was removed as being "strange" and "out of place." It should surely be in the article: if not where I put it, then elsewhere. I don't want to get into an edit war on this so could those interested please check out the reference and respond on this page. Here is the passage and the reference: "Most money is created through loans made by commercial banks." Thanks.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The reference doesn't seem to want to appear in my post above so here is the link to the source: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/20Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't work. Trying again: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdfBe-nice:-) (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In its own words, "This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans." It goes on to note how this explanation conflicts with that to be found in some textbooks of economics.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And here is some context: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerityBe-nice:-) (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

References

marx talked about money functions before

in capital.. and i quess some other people talked about the function of money even before marx --80.108.185.59 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Following a WP:RFUP request, I've lowered the protection level from SPP to PC1, should vandalism levels become unmanageable, any admin should feel free to revert this without discussion with me. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

All Money is Fiat!

All Money is a debt/credit of the issuer given value through the imposition of taxation payable only in it. What is called "commodity money", whether as physical commodities (coins, shells) or as a Commodity Standard (eg: Gold Standard) is, in reality, just fiat money.

In the former, they are tokens, valued not by the commodity from which it is made but by the debt it represents.

A Gold Standard is merely government fiat money with government price setting & on-demand redeemability. The government, instead of leaving it to the market, sets the price of gold & promises to exchange, on-demand, money for gold at this set price.

Apparently the presence of government price setting & on-demand redeemability changes "fiat money" into "commodity money". One can only conclude that the term "commodity money" is used entirely for propaganda purposes. Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In a gold standard the government does not set the price of gold. That is a common misconception. It is instead the other way around. The value of the currency is fixed to the value of the gold. The value of the gold can only be determined by the market. 72.201.248.201 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is an indisputable fact that prior to 1971 the US Government set the price of gold to $35/ounce. Vilhelmo (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Functions

In the section medium of exchange it says "Money's most important usage is as a method for comparing the values of dissimilar objects.". Apart from the fact that the statement should be put up for debate in general, it is misplaced in that section. I suggest at least moving it to the section measure of value instead. (Econ404 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC))

Since there have been no immediate objections, I have filed an edit-request (Econ404 (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)).

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

In the section medium of exchange it says "Money's most important usage is as a method for comparing the values of dissimilar objects.". This statement is misplaced in that section, it should be moved to the section measure of value instead. Furthermore I suggest watering it down a bit (i.e. "one of the most important usages" instead of "the most important usage"). I have already posted this request on the talk page.

References for the statement above: Basic Principles of Economics - Money as well as Mankiw N.G., & Taylor M.P. (2011). Economics (2nd ed., revised ed.) Andover: Cengage Learning.

Econ404 (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The sentence you want moved is about how it is used in relation to dissimilar objects, and doesn't read to me to be about how much the money is worth. Please establish a consensus before reactivating this request; thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is not about how much the money is worth. However, in the context of the function "measure of value" money is used to determine how much an object is worth. As such it builds the foundation of comparing the value of dissimilar objects. This happens before the exchange. "Medium of exchange" on the other hand only refers to the process of exchanging goods/services for currency. Econ404 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request on 1/28/2015

The first two sentences of the article states: "Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context.[1][2][3] The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, perhaps, a standard of deferred payment"

However, these sentences are conflicting. For example, there are currencies that have been accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country, but did not have a store of value. People accepted these currencies because they were forced to trade in the legal tender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.243.66 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusion between money and currency

There is much confusion in this article between currency and money and the article suffers from it. For example: There is no such thing as a fiat money as all money by definition has an intrinsic value, what the article is referring to is fiat currency which is often incorrectly referred to as fiat money. This is unfortunate as it misleads people into believing that currency is a form of money which it is not as it does not have any store of value, the only true monies are gold and silver (if properly quantised) by the nature of their existence. This article in general is need of a serious rewrite as it seemingly uses money and currency interchangeably and as such much of it is irrelevant to money and/or else wrong due to this confusion. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

Full or partial payment

I suggest that we modify the lede or opening sentence to say 'as full or partial payment' rather than 'as payment'. Is a discount coupon 'money' in the understanding of this article? MaynardClark (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2015

Hi, I think it would be reasonable to compleate following part:

After World War II, at the Bretton Woods Conference, most countries adopted fiat currencies that were fixed to the US dollar. The US dollar was in turn fixed to gold. In 1971 the US government suspended the convertibility of the US dollar to gold. After this many countries de-pegged their currencies from the US dollar, and most of the world's currencies became unbacked by anything except the governments' fiat of legal tender and the ability to convert the money into goods via payment. According to proponents of modern money theory, the fiat money are also backed by taxes. By imposing taxes, states create demand for the currency they issue.

Jakubpesa (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Economic and monetary schools of thought can be highly disputed, so I offer no guarantee that this edit will stick. Altamel (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Functions

In the section "measure of value" there's a meaningless sentence "It has significantly in developing efficient accounting systems". I propose a replacement: "The value function of money has been a significant challenge in the development of effective accounting systems." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.160.120 (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Complete overhaul required.

Firstly, 'Modern Monetary Theory' needs to be capitalised (and linked to its page) as it is a school of thought not merely the way people think today.

Secondly, the whole page is an unchallenged (apart from that small MMT reference) recounting of the 'traditional' or 'orthodox' view as invented by Adam Smith and expanded on by Carl Menger. It has been seriously challenged (I would say demolished) by Innes, Knapp, Wray and Hudson, amongst other neo-chartalists and MMTers.

This is a controversial area as indicated by Sumandark8600's comment which has it exactly backwards. Money by definition has *no* intrinsic value, it is not even a physical thing. If a currency (the physical representation of money) has intrinsic value it is because it is made of a commodity. Usually the face (monetary) value of a gold coin (for example) will be higher than its inherent value or it will be exchanged as bullion. Try buying a gold eagle for a Dollar!

Historically, credit preceded money, there are credit notes from 3000BC, and money (using many forms of currency) preceded coinage. The notion that only gold is money came from 12th century France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingsail (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Now I've read all the talk archives (up to 2009, the rest are not linked) I see that all heterodox views have been, and are being, deliberately excluded. The people who thought (like me) that the page doesn't actually have a definition of what money *is* got no traction.

It is remarkable that an apparently simple everyday subject like money should be so contentious. It is a disservice to Wikipedia readers to pretend otherwise. Wingsail (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not have it backwards. Currency is not a physical representation of money and money by definition has to be a physical commodity. Though I can understand where your confusion arrises.

Currency is defined by having the 6 following traits: 1) being a medium of exchange - ie; it is able to be used as an intermediary in trade, 2) a unit of account - ie; it is able to be numbered and counted, 3) durable - ie; it has a long useable life, 4) divisible - ie; it can be divided equally into to smaller units (coinage oe), 5) portable - ie; it is easy to carry or transport, 6) fungible - -ie; each unit is capable of mutual substitution, meaning units are of equal value (1 pound coin or 5 pound note in my pocket holds the same value as all other 1 pound coins or 5 pound notes, or five 1 pound coins holds the same value as one 5 pound note etc) (By this the value is meant as the value given to it by the power of the people, not by the value of the individual components used to create those units as the 2 values are not synonymous). It does not however fit this 7th trait which money does fit, money also fits the previous 6 traits that currency fits (for fungibility, the value of the units of money = the sum value of the components used to create those units), this 7th trait is; 7) store of value - ie; retains its purchasing power over long periods of time.

The reason currency can't have a store of value is due to its value constantly changing due to the power of countries associated with a country changing, and due to the constant changing of the total sums of a currency from inflation etc. E.G., if in a closed system there are 10 apples and 10 oranges it might be considered that 1 apple has the same value as 1 orange and as such if 1 person has 5 apples and another has 5 oranges they may swap 1 apple for 1 orange, however if the person with the 5 apples grows 10 more apples he now has 15 apples meaning in this closed system there are twice as many apples as there are oranges and as there is no monopoly of either it can be determined that the value of the apples has halved whereas the value of the oranges has stayed the same, then if the 2 people wish to swap it will require person 1 to give person 2 2 apples to be able to get 1 orange. This is an example of inflation where the apples represent currency and the oranges represent money. In the real world, both apples and oranges could be used to some extent as currency if each apple was the same and each orange was the same but they are not, they are however similar to each other so they could still be used as a sort of "pseudo-currency", they could never be used as money however as their quantity is unstable as is the quantity of cash, sheep, steel, televisions etc meaning that none of these things could be used as money. Gold and silver however are elements of the periodic table that are very hard to create from other elements, so hard to recreate in fact that their quantity is very stable to the extent of <± 1 ng a decade. They are also bountiful enough to be readily available for exchange unlike other elements such as platinum and it is this balance between all of these things that makes gold and silver the only true monies and whenever you see the value of them change you are actually seeing the value of the currency used to measure their worth (typically US dollars) change as the value o gold and silver doesn't change.

As I have said before: "There is much confusion in this article between currency and money and the article suffers from it. For example: There is no such thing as a fiat money as all money by definition has an intrinsic value, what the article is referring to is fiat currency which is often incorrectly referred to as fiat money. This is unfortunate as it misleads people into believing that currency is a form of money which it is not as it does not have any store of value, the only true monies are gold and silver (if properly quantised) by the nature of their existence. This article in general is need of a serious rewrite as it seemingly uses money and currency interchangeably and as such much of it is irrelevant to money and/or else wrong due to this confusion." (Sumandark8600 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC))

Your definitions are those of the metallists, who have it backwards. According to the metal-peddling website you reference all those people swapping real stuff for bits of paper (or even electrons) are deluded fools. Yet trade actually happens. How can that be?

The site mentions IOUs for gold. But IOUs don't have to be for gold. That is a clue. Read this other Wray book for the full story.

Here's my version, which is the kind of info I think this page should include:

1) Farmer Giles sells a dozen eggs to Lord Snooty for a pound of corn. That is barter.

DEFINITION: Barter is the direct, simultaneous exchange of wealth.

2) Farmer Giles sells a dozen eggs to Lord Snooty for his promise of a pound of corn come harvest time. That is credit.

DEFINITION: Credit is a claim on wealth (that may not exist yet).

3) Windy Miller sells half a pound of flour to Farmer Giles for Lord Snooty's promise. That is money.

DEFINITION: Money is transferable credit.

Governments may issue money which is not a promise of wealth but a promise that it (and nothing else) will be accepted in payment of taxes. Since most people have to pay taxes this is sufficient to give the money value.

DEFINITION: Fiat money is transferable tax credit.

Some of the problems inherent in barter can be ameliorated somewhat by using a third, commonly accepted commodity to make the exchange of wealth indirect.

DEFINITION: Commodity money is barter by proxy.

Commodity money may be bulky or risky to carry around so bankers may hold it for the owners and issue notes representing the commodity which may be exchanged in its stead.

DEFINITION: Representative money is barter by proxy by proxy.

There is an elephant in the room called Bank money. I don't have a snappy one line definition for that (yet), but it does not represent a commodity, or any other kind of real wealth.

Metallists believe that Commodity money is the One True Money, but it must be combined with a separate credit system to approach the utility of credit based money.

Note that credit based money (which is what we currently use, and always have, even when we thought otherwise) is an agreement, a social relationship, an idea. Coins, notes, cowrie shells, whatever physical currency happens to be used to record or represent it, are merely operational details. Wingsail (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading your post again I noticed a couple of specifics which I'd like to address directly.

You say "2) a unit of account - ie; it is able to be numbered and counted" which comes from goldsilver.com. "Unit of Account" means it is the unit in which accounting is done, ie. it is a set value against which all other values are measured. That doesn't mean values can't change relative to it or each other, it provides a way to compare the values of things that may never have been traded against each other.

Those 7 traits which "define money" are chosen so as to describe Commodity money. Notice that the "standard of deferred payment" is not included. That is because Commodity money does not do that.

Furthermore, these or any other traits may be desirable features of a money or a currency but they do not define what it is. You might as well say "I want money to be orange, therefore gooseberries aren't money" ignoring the fact that the gooseberries your boss pays you will actually buy a hot meal at any diner in town.

Even furthermore, there's no reason why one kind of money should have to fulfil all such specifications. It may not even be possible. You could easily have a "spending money" and a "saving money".

Which brings me to "store of value". There is really no inherent value stability in gold. When Spain conquered the New World, and in the California gold rush the value of gold cratered. Its usually tight supply opens the market to manipulation by large holders. Central banks keep it not because it is money but because it is not. They can settle trade deficits with it in barter arrangements if their counterparty does not want their money, which makes it more likely the counterparty will take the money! Wingsail (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2016

116.106.98.108 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: and link removed. Other than a bare URL pointing to YouTube, no edit was suggested. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Money (монета) - is not total.

Money ever with own QR-code. (андроид)85.140.78.150 (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

History of Money

I've started a topic on the problems of the History of Money article, feedback is welcome! Alæxis_¿question? 12:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Fiat Money

The base essence of fiat money is rooted in the organic definition of the Latin term fiat, meaning "By official decree" or "Let it be so (because of an official decree)".

One of the best example of a non-fiat medium of exchange and a medium of exchange established by fiat comes from ancient Rome (where they spoke Latin and where the term "fiat money" was coined). The Romans' use of bronze, while not among the more ancient examples of the transition from barter systems to a monetary systems is well documented, and it illustrates this transition clearly. First we find the use of "aes rude" (rough bronze) which was a heavy weight of unmeasured bronze being used in what was properly a barter system -- the barter-ability of the bronze was related exclusively to its usefulness in blacksmithing and it was bartered with the intent of being turned into tools. The next historical step was bronze in bars that had a 5-pound pre-measured weight (presumably to make barter easier and more fair), called "aes signatum" (signed bronze), which is where debate arises between if this is still the barter system or now a monetary system. Finally, there is a clear break from the use of bronze in barter into its undebatable use as money because of lighter measures of bronze not intended to be used as anything other than coinage for transactions. The aes grave (heavy bronze) (or As) is the start of the use of coins in Rome, but not the oldest known example metal coinage.

The "aes signatum" (signed bronze) was established by fiat, or in other words, it was established by an official decree setting the weight and purity and then stamped (signed) by the state official who was the central authority making sure the weights and measures were accurate in order to prevent people from cheating each other. This was the first "fiat currency." It was made of metal.

The perversion of the definition of the term "fiat currency" doesn't make it a valid definition simply because so many people are in error. Further, it doesn't matter if people can be cited in any academic papers or other sources of authority making this common error.

In light of this, fiat money is best defined as the "official money" of a Nation established by an official decree or written law. This includes official gold and silver coin minted by the State or National Mint because, by official decree, this was established as money by the State/Nation by law. Gold and silver coin that is not established by official decree, is not the sovereign money of the Nation or even a legal tender.

Further, there have been several different kinds of fiat money used and tried in history. Some tried to rely upon nothing more than the official decree to sustain the face value of the money. This failed in the US when the Nation first started with its very first issue of Bills of Credit (there have been other issues of Bills of Credit in US History and there are currently still $300 million US Notes in circulation). Christopher Theodore (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

Put "Counterfeit money can cause good money to lose its value. after " "all debts, public and private". please Ur Momma Non-Notable (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ur Momma Non-Notable:  Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

Typo correction reference the following sentence: "Any item or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered as money." Fulfils only has one 'l', not two.

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

edit request on 15 February 2019

Oceancdrboy (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oceancdrboy: What do you want to be done? Paradoctor (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Money Flower

The taxonomy of different kinds of money is not included. It can be as there is - The Money Flower. This taxonomic infographic of types of money can be seen on the digital currency page. Yet there is no link to the infographic here only digital and that is not helpful. Can someone add the infographic in appropriately or put a link in the see also. As the page is locked / protected I cannot do that and do not want to do that if someone has an attitdue and will just revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.7.24 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Specific money

The problem with the intro "Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts, such as taxes, in a particular country or socio-economic context" is that money is not "any item," its a specific kind of item. Its precisely manufactured and managed so there is uniformity and unitarity, and then its distributed so that there's only one of it, but everyone can have some. -ApexUnderground (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

---And cowrie shells used as wampuum? these are not manufactured as you put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.7.24 (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The money you have in the bank is just a record on a log, it is not manufactured as such. When you pay with a credit card, it is not the manufactured bit that you give. Nine out of ten dollars in existence are bank money, not dollar bills. Money can be anything, it can be a line of script in a log, a piece of paper, a piece of metal, a knot in a string, or a shell, anything, as long as it is verifiable and accepted in a specific context. So, I think that the current definition fits the bill, but the one you propose is too reductive. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Money

Money is transactional power in a discrete and countable form, distributed by a sovereign nation in denominational units (as in paper money or banked digital money) as a provision for its people to engage in abundant financial transactions. Before money, transactions were of item-for-item trade form, or of gold value-by-weight form. Money (cognate with "mano") was innovative as a lightweight, carry-in-the-hand alternative to carrying actual goods to market.

In recent years virtual currencies became a notable innovation, with anonymous origins and claims of transcending the problems of national currencies. -Daemon Garth (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Swedish

please change ((Swedish)) to ((Sweden|Swedish)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:61f4:e3d4:44c8:dc85 (talk)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

nm sp gp

please add a link to near money. Really general purpose and special purpose money should be clarified in the article too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"🤑" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🤑. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#🤑 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there not a section for criticism of money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.49.28 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by this? Critizism about the consept? About inflation of money? 80.212.44.121 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How the hell can you say money is bad like come on it can buy things like a manicure and an omelette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:2481:C800:B868:9CAD:9A66:D1DA (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Headline

Their are those that keeping is the one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.128.180.104 (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Money poster.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pengar - 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Money is provably "an in-process promise to complete a trade over time and space."

Money is provably "an in-process promise to complete a trade over time and space."

And whoever is deleting this comment should at least disprove the proof forwarded. Whoever is deleting this comment would have found fault with Copernicus as well. WithGLEE (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If Copernicus tried to edit Wikipedia without publishing his work elsewhere first, I would remove it too. Do you have any references other than your own genius for these claims? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Who are you to remove anyone's work? Re-references: I have written or annotated more than 200 articles that prove my points. See: https://moneydelusions.com/wp/2017/07/30/what-is-money/

WithGLEE (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source by Wikipedia’s definition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia deal with the obvious? There is a first source for everything...even what Copernicus was saying. No "first" source is "reliable". And many so-called reliable sources are incestuous...witness the so-called global warming emails that reveal the playbook of that charade. That's why we should value the "talk" facility of Wikipedia. We didn't have that with Encyclopedias like Britannica and and Americana where nonsense went unchallenged and provable concepts could be censored. Show me any instance of the origination of money and I will show you a "trader"...or a "counterfeiter". Dropping money from helicopters (e.g. government stimulus checks) is not money creation...it is counterfeiting. Banks 10x reserve privilege (yielding 10x profit to them...doubling their so-called "capital" in two years) is not money creation...it doesn't happen without a trader "begging" the bank to do it. And you won't find this "obvious" fact in any "reliable source"...period! WithGLEE (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If you publish your opinions in a reliable source such as an academic journal they can be considered as sources for this article. If you read the link above about reliable sources, and the links left on your talk page about the use of article talk pages, you’ll see that if you persist in talking about your own opinions instead of discussing how to improve the article using reliable sources you are likely to find your contributions removed, and if you’re sufficiently disruptive you may be blocked from editing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Block away. You a doing a great disservice...whoever you are. WithGLEE (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedians cannot be expected to peer review original research. Wikipedia was never designed to fulfil that function. Instead wikipedians are looking out for evidence that the research has been reviewed already. This could mean that the work has been published in a peer reviewed journal or that at the very least there is evidence that the author has gained a reputation in their field. Reissgo (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggested improvements on the origins of money

2nd paragraph of Money#History doesn't offer a solid origin of money beyond hints. And "something like 160 grains" (10 grams or a shekel) of barley is rather misinformed and absurd for Sumerians counting only until 360. We propose here to replace this by words from a solid JSTOR article on how commodity money began (inside blockquotes). Suggested rewrites and/or approvals helps explain money's origins on more solid ground.

If so endorsed / desired exactly the same text be also grafted in History_of_money#Overview which suffers the same issues. Thanks.

Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. The Mesopotamian shekel was a unit of weight, and relied on the mass of something like 160 grains of barley. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC.Establishing the origins of commodity money requires written records on which historical commodities served the various functions of money. In ancient Mesopotamia silver and barley were known to have served as basic monies from 2500 BC or earlier, with their monetary uses well-attested to in documents of nearly all periods and areas.Gold's monetary use was limited by its rarity, and served more as commodity than money before c 1400 BC.

Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022

"Some places do maintain two or currencies" under Locality, should be changed. Luckytech42 (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Would anyone mind if I renamed (with redirects) the first two talk archive pages to their standard names (Talk:Money/Archive 1 and Talk:Money/Archive 2) and re-start archiving? GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)