Talk:Private currency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article about Exonumia 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.

The idea that the Joule can be used as a unit of value is highly unconventional and untested. I think it merely confuses the issue. As such the following paragraph is painful and I think it should be removed or heavily edited.

It is possible for privately issued money to be backed by any other material, although some people argue about perishable materials. After all, gold, or platinum, or silver, have in some regards less utility than previously (their electrical properties notwithstanding), while currency backed by energy (measured in joules) or by transport (measured in kilogramme*kilometre/hour) or by food [2] is also possible and may be accepted by the people, if legalised. It is important to understand though that, as long as money is above all an agreement to use something as a medium of exchange, its up to the community (or to the minority which holds the power) to decide whether money should be backed by whatever material or should be totally virtual.

Terjepetersen 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)----

Do you talk about Joule, wich is not private at all, in this article because no other space is available in the free encyclopedia to talk about it? Have a look at the following chapter about private, alternative and community currencies.

Olivierchaussavoine 08:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

____

Have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money&oldid=12197078

This paragraph is visible since 11 april 2004! Do you imagine how many people have read the paragraph and how many agree with it (as long as they didnt delete it)? The money article passed also through Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive and this paragraph still remains! Who are you to delete such a long standing paragraph? A poor workman blames 15:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

See below discussion. Paul Beardsell 20:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

____

I am well aware of the history of the Money article. The part that I objected to in the paragraph deleted was the assertion that the Joule is ever likely to be a unit of value. There is no precedent in history and the Joule is not even a good that is bought and sold on any market. If the assertion was that a "Joule of Electricity" or a "Joule of Oil" was likely to emerge as a form of money then it might make some more sence but even then I find it highly improbable. Oil is generally measured in Barrels not Joules. I would find the deleted paragraph more acceptable if it were a quote something like "In his book 'Energy and Money' Fred Smith suggested that the Joule might be a good form of Money". Terjepetersen 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice remarks regarding "Joule of Electricity" or "Joule of Oil". Listen to me. Money can be ANY marketable good or token used by a society as a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account. Anything. Do you understand that, do you agree with it? If yes, then whatever has the above three properties can be named money. A poor workman blames 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly oil could be money, and possibly the unit of measure for that money could be the joule. But if for X to be an example of Y it must have properties P, Q and R is not the same as saying that all things with properties P, Q and R are examples of Y. I'm sure if only those who had come up with the three criteria had been asked they would have added a 4th: Money can't be dirty, sticky, smelly and liquid. Economists do not say all things with the three properties are money, they say money has the three properties. Paul Beardsell 08:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

APWB - I agree that Money can be any marketable good. However some are not likely. For instance you are unlikely to find ice cubes being uses as a form of money even though they are a marketable good (my local service station sells them in bags). I have a more serious problem with money being kilogramme*kilometre/hour given that this simply isn't a marketable good. Where can I buy a kilogramme*kilometre/hour? The reality is that no such good exists and it certainly can not be stored, boxed or delivered anywhere. As you did with the Joule it needs to be properly qualified. Terjepetersen 08:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

When you buy a ticket to go from Paris to New York by plane, you buy 75kgr * 3628 miles/ 2 days = 136050 kgr*miles/day. When you want to go by boat , then you buy 75 kgr * 3628 miles / 20 days = 13605 kgr*miles/day. Some one could say that a boat or a plane are the safes where we can store that kind of money. It is actually a market based on tickets. This is how I understand that sentence. A poor workman blames 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are both missing a tiny detail. The paragraph says: "while currency backed by". The paragraph assumes that we are talking about paper money backed by any other material except gold or silver. Not fiat money. A poor workman blames 10:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Your example is a good overview of the fact that kgr*miles/day is not terribly fungible. The market value on the plane ride will differ significantly from that on the boat. And a plane ride from Sydney to London versus Sydney to Hong Kong will show that the market value of the service is not divisible in the manner that monetary goods normally are. Also there is no scope for storage as it's a service not a good, if I buy it I can't resell it later as it is consumed so it can't be a store of value. I think that the example is extremely poor and I see no point in retaining it within the article so long as far better examples exist. I would rather an example about how rum was used in the early NSW colony or how cigarettes are used in prisons or you could mention how grain was used in Ancient Eygypt. In order to retain the example of kgr*miles/day I think that it should be either as a quote of some specific author or else as an example from history. Otherwise it seems to be more POV than factual or informative. Terjepetersen 12:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 legal tender, debt and repayment 2 Private currency, alternative currency or community currencies 3 Trade Turnover in Private Currencies 4 Hong Kong dollars?

[edit] legal tender, debt and repayment

I have removed this para from the end of the article:

Though these private, especially digital, monies has had some modest success, governments have established a coercive monopoly on what currency may be used in lending by enacting legal tender laws. One may borrow a private currency but repay the loan with a legal tender that has subsequently devalued against the private alternative, with the lender being required by law to accept it. This large and apparently insurmountable risk to lenders severely limits the proliferation of private money, as the interest rate would have to be exhorbitant to compensate for this tremendous risk premium.

Who says legal tender laws say a private currency may not be used for lending? This is contradicted within a sentence by the assertion that a loan of private currency (haha!) is always repayable by law in legal tender. Which I dispute. References required. And, should I choose to accept the repayment of a loan of private currency in some other commodity / currency or even in legal tender, who says the exchange rate is mandated at the time the loan is made? "Insurmountable risk"? No. Paul Beardsell 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not polite to delete paragraphs from an article without discussing them, especially in case they have been visible a long long time before you discovered this encyclopedia. Imagine how many people have read the paragraph and as long as they didnt remove it, how many agree with it. So please be carefull next time, and avoid deleting long standing paragraphs without discussing it first.A poor workman blames 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above by Poor Workman has been annoying me all morning but the rebuttal is simple: Just how many more people do you wish Wikipedia to misinform before we fix the article? Paul Beardsell 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Edit boldly" is supposed to be the Wikipedia mantra. I did not set out to be rude, I deny rudeness. You say I am not polite. I disagree. But if I have to choose between politeness and accuracy I know which wins every time. (Both, by preference, if possible, but if I have to choose.) Now, I have put the paras here for discussion. I have said why they are wrong. Now, discuss that, rather than resort to ad hominem attack. Pretty please. Paul Beardsell 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The para is wrong (which is a matter for discussion, perhaps) and self-contradictory (no discussion reqd). I have removed it pending discussion. Paul Beardsell 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth I agree with the edit made by Paul. I think the original paragraph overstates the nature of legal tender laws. Obviously it depends on the juristiction. However I know that in Australia the legal tender laws still allow you to construct a contract that must be settled in some other means. For instance if an Australian contract says that the debt must be paid in US dollars you can't front up with Australian dollars and claim that because they are legal tender the other party must accept them. Personally I don't like legal tender laws but the article was too strong in its claim. Terjepetersen 20:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The deleted para is too strong only where it wasn't false. Paul Beardsell 01:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Private currency, alternative currency or community currencies

There seems to be some overlap between these two terms. Can someone please explain if there is a difference and if so, what? Should alternative currency be merged into the private currency article. Or should they remain two articles but with some of the information about measuring money in Joules be moved to "alternative currency" --nirvana2013 12:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the differences are so important. However, why do we oppose, private and non private currencies? They are all owned by a community of economic actors, and US dollar is considered by some as a "private currency" arguing that US treasure is a private institution. We could use a more general word, like "community corrency" for example, that would not restrict the use of a currency to a national community with the following advantages:

→. would include all categories private currency, alternative currency, currency,

→. would open the rigid debate opposing national and non-national currencies,

→. would let a place to exist on this encyclopedia for other currencies used around the world by hundred of communities that are not owned by any a private economic actor,

The real stake is related to the power of money, and ideas that ask questions about it.

Should wikipedia remain silent on about non national currencies? -- Olivierchaussavoine 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Turnover in Private Currencies

Somebody had reduced the amount of trade conducted in private currencies from billions of US dollars worth per annum to millions per annum. I have reverted this back to billions. I thought some comment was desirable. There are many privte currencies in use. E-Gold is just one of many. The statistics page for e-gold shows a turnover per 24 hour period that is typically valued between US$5-10 million per day[1]. Even if the average was as low as US$3 million per day this would still put annual turnover in the billions of dollars worth. And e-gold is only one such currency. Terjepetersen 13:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong dollars?

Most Hong Kong banknotes are issued by banks after paying a deposit to the government. Does that make HK$ a private currency?WP 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)