Talk:Commodity money

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

I've been using a standard for links in titles.

Which is: if the meaning of the phrase is precisely and only and exactly what one would expect by applying the adjective to the noun, I'll link both terms, or just the noun, as applicable, directly in the title itself.

If, on the other hand, the combination has non-obvious implications, I link only the base term e.g. "classical economics", I won't do that for "classical", just for "economics", since that's the anchor term, and a link to "classical" will be about Greek and Roman architecture, most likely. The link isn't useful to the reader to understand the subject we already know they care about.

So, if there problems with that standard, let's talk about it. It requires some judgement but so does everything. -24.

I removed a lot of stuff that was clearly NPOV.

I don't think so. I think you removed a lot of stuff that you don't understand. That said, I don't mind if this article remains short, and avoids the 20th century history of this type of money. The inter-relationship of commodity, credit and fiat got complicated in the 20th century, and the articles overlap a fair bit, explaining how each means of backing relied ultimately on both of the others.-24

it would help if you would say exactly what offended you, as your "clearly NPOV" is the rest of the world's "blindingly obvious" in a great many cases.

the views of green economists and the bank for international settlements are clearly stated in those articles.

The last couple of paragraphs is extremely well-attributed, mentioning among other things the views of the 1999 "Nobel Prize Winner in Economics" (which the Nobel family claims is a fraudulent name for what was always called the Swedish Bank Prize), that being Amartya Sen. I don't see how you can claim this is somehow not attributed, or even a very controversial view. 24

I know enough economic history to know that what I deleted was *NOT* mainstream and non-controversial, nor is it "blindingly obvious" to the rest of the world. If I'm wrong and it is then someone else will put it back.

the history of the US gold standard is well known, the role of the BIS is well documented, and Sen actually based his book on a series of lectures at the World Bank - certainly citing his view with attribution is reasonable even if it is *not* mainstream - apologies for not citing his WB post and for assuming that Swedish Bank Prize winners represent a mainstream (they usually do but perhaps 3 to 5 years in advance)24

it would help much if you told me what specifically offended you about the characterization of the recent evolution of commodity money. 24

The history of the US gold standard is indeed well known, but you have given absolutely no indication that you know anything about it. You haven't mentioned any of the reasons at all why the United States gave up the gold standard and have shown no indication that you know what they are.

I'm not interested in the "Reasons Why" unless they are beyond all historical dispute.

Instead, you have this persistent habit of claiming knowledge that you do not have.

well, I've been accussed of that before, and 80% of the time it turns out these are terminology differences, 15% of the time they are disputed facts, and only 5% of the time am I actually "Wrong". Which, given all I've written, and that only about 20% of articles are challenged, means I may be 1% wrong, which is a pretty good record.

I'm not an expert in economics. I've only read some basic college textbooks, but at this point I'm convinced that I know more about the subject of commodity money and fiat money than you do. There are some extremely basic and important facts that you've left out, and I believe you've left them out because you have no clue what they are.

well, you attempting to differentiate "commodity money" from "representative money" shows me the opposite - nearly all economists break down the various ways to back money as "commodity, credit, and fiat" and don't make an issue of representation - rather they assumed that some state is guaranteeing non-counterfeiting. The Sumerian example is critical to get to the roots of that question, and what the difference is between commodity and representative money, in your parlance, and yet you omit it from both articles. And, in the process, taking out the only funny line in the article. Shame on you. You are making this no fun.

So you tell me, what most economists think was the trigger to cause United States move to fiat money? I bet you just don't know.

maybe not, as it's not clear what you *mean* - since you think this "representative" issue is so important - as far as I'm concerned a state has moved to fiat money the second it shaves any metal at all off its coins. As I recall that first happened in the USA in the Revolutionary War. Anyway, it's irrelevant to the article, as it shouldn't speculate on cause overmuch - nor is there much concern about coinage versus paper bills in modern times - as the state is presumed to back both. But, the US Civil War was the first time that money was issued that was not *CLAIMED TO BE* strictly backed by gold, if I have that fact straight. But the evolution post that time is more interesting - 1865-1970 when there was this fake gold standard.

Also don't try looking on google for the answer. I've got access to google too, and it's going to be obvious if you just copy the first page that seems to give the right answer.

I would never do that. That's LDC's specialty. The most relevant page I can find is this gold standard = fiat in disguise which argues, as I did, that there is actually no real difference between the faux gold standard (which you call "representative money" and I call just more "fiat money") and just plain military fiat banking.

Frankly, I suspect you have never spoken to an economist outside the classical or neoclassical tradition. Globally, that makes you quite common, but you shouldn't claim to understand the fundamentals if you don't.

The Qing dynasty system is interesting - why don't you elaborate on that, commit yourself to some view or other of the gold standard versus the fiat, and we can nitpick at it for days.

As to what "most economists think", that depends on whether you are talking about the USA where economists are generally wholly ignorant even of the Marxist analysis, and thus are not economists proper but rather propagandists, or whether you are talking about the UK where the Empire-centric view prevails (empire as guarantor of trade and military power signified by acceptability of notes versus precious metal coins).

From the UK view, one would have to say that US imperialism at the turn of the 19th to 20th century forced it to shift to fiat money. Whether they continued to claim that gold was backing it, or the future productive potential of new colonies like the Phillippines or Hawaii or Alaska, is quite irrelevant, as nothing that imperialists say is more than pro-empire propaganda, ultimately.

And, an outright Marxist would say something completely different. So you tell me the scope of "most economists" and I'll give you some kind of answer, that you will claim is "wrong" because of your high school understanding, and you keep issuing your high school surprise quiz, and nothing will get done.

I think we're better off if you write what you think the gold standard meant, and how it fcilitated the shift from commodity to "representative" to fiat money. Also what you think credit means, since the idea of a division of function between fiat and representative money truly fuzzes that question.

Looking forward to it.

Hey. Guys. Don't forget that with timestamps and signatures, you can make your discussion legible to people who aren't you. (You do know there are people who aren't you, don't you?) Use tildes (~): either three (69.49.44.11), four (69.49.44.11 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)), or five (14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)). And, not to be partisan or anything, but "I removed a lot of stuff that was clearly NPOV" strikes me as a famous last words sort of statement. Even if the removal is entirely apt, the explanation is unlikely to inform, persuade, or comfort anyone.