Money is proof. Of what? That is the question. Answer it, and you can understand money completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.34.230 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Money is proof of having served one's fellow man. Rogimoto (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
[edit] Suggestions
[edit] 1a. There are a few spelling/grammar errors.
4. Liquidity: econmy → economy
Credit: aggregrates → aggregates
Problems with precious metals as money (specie): jewellery → jewelry (if "jewellery is the British spelling, disregard).
Problems with paper as money: bills,Malaysia → bills, Malaysia
[edit] 1b. There are many issues under this criteria.
WP:LEAD states
“
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.
„
WP:MOS states:
"In a heading, capitalize only the first letter of the first word and the first letter of any proper nouns, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Example: “Rules and regulations”, not “Rules and Regulations”." Social Evolution of Money, Money Supply, and The Future of Money need to be corrected.
"Avoid the use of links in headings." This is present in all headings below Characteristics.
"Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, in parentheses. This tells readers they will probably find it later in the text and makes it easy for them to refer back to it."
*Under History, US, UK, and USA make initial appearances. US and UK need to be corrected as per above, USA changed to US. And both wikified.Y Done
*Under Private currencies, United States needs to be changed to US, as per above, and de-wikified.Y Done
(Concerning wikifying) "Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder."
fiat money--wikified in History--redirects to fiat currency--wikilinked in Characteristics-It is a store of value.
Barter is wikified in both the lead and Desirable features-To be anonymous.
Gold and silver are wikified in History, Desirable features-To be anonymous, and Modern forms (gold only).
Money supply is wikified in the lead, credit (two times), Money and economy, and Money supply.
In the headings under Characteristics, it is unnecessary that they include numbers. It is understood from the unsourced rhyme that there are four functions, therefore there need not be numbers. Additionally, there really need not be headings at all. They should simply be bold titles like those below Desirable features.
There may be more issues, but I'll stop there for the time being.
[edit] 2a-b. This is a big issue.
There are very few sources for this article... and I noticed that it's been (minimally) tagged for months. Considering its length and the number of topics covered, there should be at least three dozen references. Of the six references that are present now, not one is formatted correctly. One isn't even tagged as a reference; it's listed in text under Characteristics-It is a medium of exchange.
[edit] 2c. Another big issue.
WP:NOR states that an article can have NO original research. You may know it to be true, but that does not make it encyclopedic. If you can't cite a source, delete it.
[edit] Conclusion
The current state of this article disqualifies it for GA. However, considering the importance of the topic, I've requested that it be the WikiProject Good Articles collaboration of the week (COW). Pending the results of that nomination this GA nomination is being put on hold. If the nomination for COW does not go through, the GA nomination will be failed unless there is significant progress in correcting the above issues. The hold period will be no more than seven days. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 06:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review: Missing coverage areas/Further suggestions
[edit] 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
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
Historical and social context
Historical forms
Social evolution of money
Linkages between money and other social institutions
Modern forms
The future of money
Benchmark world currencies
Economic characteristics
Money as a medium of exchange
Desirable characteristics
Commodity based standards (e.g. gold)
Money defined by social contract (e.g. paper money)
Money as a unit of account
Desirable characteristics
Market value vs. book value
Present value vs. future value - time value of money
Money as a storage medium
Desirable characteristics
Hedging to preserve value
Impact of inflation and deflation
Physical decay and commodity backed currencies
Liquidity
Money should be anonymous (this is really a liquidity issue)
Managing the national money supply
Tracking the money supply (definition, statistics)
Credit - when is it money?
Private currencies
Economic impact
The historic and social context of money.
The eight sections History, Social evolution of money, and modern forms, future of money, Social and psychological value of money, Linkages between money and other social institutions, and benchmark currencies are really all about how money functions in a historical and social context.
Split as they are into sections top and bottom, the interconnections between these sections are hard to see. For example, overlaps and redundant information in Social and psychological value, Social evolution of money, Linkages between money and other social institutions.
Benchmark currencies are also part of the social and historic context. Some discussion about what makes a currency benchmark might be merited as well. The list is always in flux so principles will be more important than lists.
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)>
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Alternatives to money
Some in the scientific community have viewed money as being an unreliable tool of measurement as regards social and ecological concerns[14], and thus, proposals concerning alternatives to money in the future, may be a prospect.[15] Technocracy Incorporated asserts that Energy Accounting uses a fixed value (energy, thermodynamics) instead of a fiat variable system, and does not rely on growth as most monetary systems presently do.[16] In fiction, Voyage from Yesteryear mentions an "economy" without money.
Money
For other uses, see Money (disambiguation).
Various denominations of currency, one form of money.
Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts.[1] The main uses of money are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.[2] Some authors explicitly require money to be a standard of deferred payment.[3]
Money includes both currency, particularly the many circulating currencies with legal tender status, and various forms of financial deposit accounts, such as demand deposits, savings accounts, and certificates of deposit. In modern economies, currency is the smallest component of the money supply.
Money is not the same as value, the latter being the basic element in economics. Money is central to the study of economics and forms its most cogent link to finance. The absence of money causes a market economy to be inefficient because it requires a coincidence of wants between traders, and an agreement that these needs are of equal value, before a barter exchange can occur. The use of money is thought to encourage trade and the division of labour.
The word "money" is believed to originate from a temple located on Capitoline, one of Rome's seven hills. On one of Capitoline's peaks, the temple of Juno Moneta stood where the mint of Ancient Rome was located.[4]
Contents[hide]
1 Economic characteristics
1.1 Medium of exchange
1.2 Unit of account
1.3 Store of value
2 Market liquidity
3 Types of money
3.1 Commodity money
3.2 Representative money
3.3 Credit money
3.4 Fiat money
3.5 Money supply
3.6 Monetary policy
4 History of money
5 Criticisms of money
6 Alternatives to money
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
//
Various denominations of currency, one form of money.
Money is anything that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts.[1] The main uses of money are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.[2] Some authors explicitly require money to be a standard of deferred payment.[3]
Money includes both currency, particularly the many circulating currencies with legal tender status, and various forms of financial deposit accounts, such as demand deposits, savings accounts, and certificates of deposit. In modern economies, currency is the smallest component of the money supply.
Money is not the same as value, the latter being the basic element in economics. Money is central to the study of economics and forms its most cogent link to finance. The absence of money causes a market economy to be inefficient because it requires a coincidence of wants between traders, and an agreement that these needs are of equal value, before a barter exchange can occur. The use of money is thought to encourage trade and the division of labour.
The word "money" is believed to originate from a temple located on Capitoline, one of Rome's seven hills. On one of Capitoline's peaks, the temple of Juno Moneta stood where the mint of Ancient Rome was located.[4]
Contents[hide]
1 Economic characteristics
1.1 Medium of exchange
1.2 Unit of account
1.3 Store of value
2 Market liquidity
3 Types of money
3.1 Commodity money
3.2 Representative money
3.3 Credit money
3.4 Fiat money
3.5 Money supply
3.6 Monetary policy
4 History of money
5 Criticisms of money
6 Alternatives to money
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
//
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.
Historical and social context
Historical forms
Social evolution of money
Linkages between money and other social institutions
Modern forms
The future of money
Benchmark world currencies
Economic characteristics
Money as a medium of exchange
Desirable characteristics
Commodity based standards (e.g. gold)
Money defined by social contract (e.g. paper money)
Money as a unit of account
Desirable characteristics
Market value vs. book value
Present value vs. future value - time value of money
Money as a storage medium
Desirable characteristics
Hedging to preserve value
Impact of inflation and deflation
Physical decay and commodity backed currencies
Liquidity
Money should be anonymous (this is really a liquidity issue)
Managing the national money supply
Tracking the money supply (definition, statistics)
Credit - when is it money?
Private currencies
Economic impact
The historic and social context of money.
The eight sections History, Social evolution of money, and modern forms, future of money, Social and psychological value of money, Linkages between money and other social institutions, and benchmark currencies are really all about how money functions in a historical and social context.
Split as they are into sections top and bottom, the interconnections between these sections are hard to see. For example, overlaps and redundant information in Social and psychological value, Social evolution of money, Linkages between money and other social institutions.
Benchmark currencies are also part of the social and historic context. Some discussion about what makes a currency benchmark might be merited as well. The list is always in flux so principles will be more important than lists.
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)
Historical and social context
Historical forms
Social evolution of money
Linkages between money and other social institutions
Modern forms
The future of money
Benchmark world currencies
Economic characteristics
Money as a medium of exchange
Desirable characteristics
Commodity based standards (e.g. gold)
Money defined by social contract (e.g. paper money)
Money as a unit of account
Desirable characteristics
Market value vs. book value
Present value vs. future value - time value of money
Money as a storage medium
Desirable characteristics
Hedging to preserve value
Impact of inflation and deflation
Physical decay and commodity backed currencies
Liquidity
Money should be anonymous (this is really a liquidity issue)
Managing the national money supply
Tracking the money supply (definition, statistics)
Credit - when is it money?
Private currencies
Economic impact
The historic and social context of money.
The eight sections History, Social evolution of money, and modern forms, future of money, Social and psychological value of money, Linkages between money and other social institutions, and benchmark currencies are really all about how money functions in a historical and social context.
Split as they are into sections top and bottom, the interconnections between these sections are hard to see. For example, overlaps and redundant information in Social and psychological value, Social evolution of money, Linkages between money and other social institutions.
Benchmark currencies are also part of the social and historic context. Some discussion about what makes a currency benchmark might be merited as well. The list is always in flux so principles will be more important than lists.
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)
Talk:Money
Money is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
[show]
Article milestones
Date
Process
Result
June 27, 2004
Featured article candidate
Not promoted
August 31, 2006
Peer review
Reviewed
May 21, 2007
Good article nominee
Not listed
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 27, 2008.
Current Status: Former featured article candidate
[show]
This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.Click [show] for further details
This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Finance, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Finance. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Business and economics portalThis article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B
rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top
rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale
Religion portalThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B
This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B
rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High
rated as high-importance on the importance scale
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
[show]Additional information:
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???
This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is a vital article.
This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.
WikiProject Echo has identified Money as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hungarian language Wikipedia.
Archives
2002 - June 2006 discussions, July 2006 - April 2007
Contents[hide]
1 Money is Proof
2 GA Review
2.1 Suggestions
2.1.1 1a. There are a few spelling/grammar errors.
2.1.2 1b. There are many issues under this criteria.
2.1.3 2a-b. This is a big issue.
2.1.4 2c. Another big issue.
2.2 Conclusion
3 GA Review: Missing coverage areas/Further suggestions
3.1 Characteristics of money
3.2 Neutral point of view
3.3 Article organization
3.4 Source citations
3.5 Sections
3.6 Private currency section
4 Quotes about money
5 legality...
6 Types of money
7 Types of Money
8 Value of Money
9 Failed GA
10 Article is getting a lot better
11 Monetary Policy?
12 Fiat Money and Savings
13 CRITICISM OF MONEY
14 how much money exists in the world in dollars?
15 Content that should be added back in
16 Historic perspective from outsider view
17 Deferred payment
18 Added a 'criticism of money' section
19 Criticisms of money
20 Alternatives to money
21 future 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'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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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). )
UPenn: http://www.econ.upenn.edu/econ2/ch13_econ2.pdf
Drexel: http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/Prin/txt/money/types.html
Iowa state: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ353/tesfatsion/mish3a.htm#Meaning
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)
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). )
UPenn: http://www.econ.upenn.edu/econ2/ch13_econ2.pdf
Drexel: http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/Prin/txt/money/types.html
Iowa state: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ353/tesfatsion/mish3a.htm#Meaning
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)
See also here
Numismatics portal
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Money
Look up Money inWiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Money
Category:Money
Coin of account
Counterfeit, for Counterfeiting of Money
Credit money
Currency market
Economics
Electronic money
Federal Reserve
Fractional reserve banking
Full reserve banking
Labor-time voucher
Local Exchange Trading Systems
Money creation
non-market economics
Numismatics — Collection and study of money
Seignorage
Standard of deferred payment
World currency
Store of value
To act as a store of value, a commodity, a form of money, or financial capital must be able to be reliably saved, stored, and retrieved — and be predictably useful when it is so retrieved. Fiat currency like paper or electronic currency no longer backed by gold in most countries is not considered by some economists to be a store of value.
Unit of account
A unit of account is a standard numerical unit of measurement of the market value of goods, services, and other transactions. Also known as a "measure" or "standard" of relative worth and deferred payment, a unit of account is a necessary prerequisite for the formulation of commercial agreements that involve debt.
Divisible into small units without destroying its value; precious metals can be coined from bars, or melted down into bars again.
Fungible: that is, one unit or piece must be perceived as equivalent to any other, which is why diamonds, works of art or real estate are not suitable as money.
A specific weight, or measure, or size to be verifiably countable. For instance, coins are often made with ridges around the edges, so that any removal of material from the coin (lowering its commodity value) will be easy to detect.
Divisible into small units without destroying its value; precious metals can be coined from bars, or melted down into bars again.
Fungible: that is, one unit or piece must be perceived as equivalent to any other, which is why diamonds, works of art or real estate are not suitable as money.
A specific weight, or measure, or size to be verifiably countable. For instance, coins are often made with ridges around the edges, so that any removal of material from the coin (lowering its commodity value) will be easy to detect.
Criticisms of money
It was the ’drastic influence’ that energy quality and availability had on economic development that led M. King Hubbert and Frederick Soddy among others, to criticize standard economics for its lack of a biophysical basis. Echoing the words of Frederick Soddy written almost a half-century earlier in Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (1926), Hubbert stated:
"...when one speaks of the state of growth of GNP, I haven’t the faintest idea what this means when I try to translate it onto coal, oil, iron, and the other physical quantities which are required to run an industry...the quantity GNP is a monetary bookkeeping entity. It obeys the laws of money. It can be expanded or diminished, created or destroyed, but it does not obey the laws of physics."
Thermoeconomics research dealing with biophysical economics questions the ability of money to come to terms with the operation of our current high energy civilization.
"...when one speaks of the state of growth of GNP, I haven’t the faintest idea what this means when I try to translate it onto coal, oil, iron, and the other physical quantities which are required to run an industry...the quantity GNP is a monetary bookkeeping entity. It obeys the laws of money. It can be expanded or diminished, created or destroyed, but it does not obey the laws of physics."
Thermoeconomics research dealing with biophysical economics questions the ability of money to come to terms with the operation of our current high energy civilization.
Medium of exchange
Money is used as an intermediary for trade, in order to avoid the inefficiencies of a barter system, which are sometimes referred to as the 'double coincidence of wants problem'. Such usage is termed a medium of exchange.
Monetary policy
Monetary policy is the process by which a government, central bank, or monetary authority manages the money supply to achieve specific goals. Usually the goal of monetary policy is to accommodate economic growth in an environment of stable prices. For example, it is clearly stated in the Federal Reserve Act that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should seek “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”[10]
A failed monetary policy can have significant detrimental effects on an economy and the society that depends on it. These include hyperinflation, stagflation, recession, high unemployment, shortages of imported goods, inability to export goods, and even total monetary collapse and the adoption of a much less efficient barter economy. This happened in Russia, for instance, after the fall of the Soviet Union.
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 rate at which the government loans or borrows money
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
For many years much of monetary policy was influenced by an economic theory known as monetarism. Monetarism is an economic theory which argues that management of the money supply should be the primary means of regulating economic activity. The stability of the demand for money prior to the 1980s was a key finding of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz[11] supported by the work of David Laidler[12], and many others.
The nature of the demand for money changed during the 1980s owing to technical, institutional, and legal factors and the influence of monetarism has since decrease
A failed monetary policy can have significant detrimental effects on an economy and the society that depends on it. These include hyperinflation, stagflation, recession, high unemployment, shortages of imported goods, inability to export goods, and even total monetary collapse and the adoption of a much less efficient barter economy. This happened in Russia, for instance, after the fall of the Soviet Union.
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 rate at which the government loans or borrows money
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
For many years much of monetary policy was influenced by an economic theory known as monetarism. Monetarism is an economic theory which argues that management of the money supply should be the primary means of regulating economic activity. The stability of the demand for money prior to the 1980s was a key finding of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz[11] supported by the work of David Laidler[12], and many others.
The nature of the demand for money changed during the 1980s owing to technical, institutional, and legal factors and the influence of monetarism has since decrease
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)