From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text

	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.

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

History of money was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: Error: invalid time

This article is conspicuously missing many examples of early money, such as the cowrie shells, and bronze imitations, which are widely regarded as the first true, standardized money. This brief Nova overview of the history of money is vastly superior to the current article, and wikipedia should aim to surpass it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/moolah/history.html

Qwasty 05:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What does B.P. stand for? Can somone create a link and an explenation?

BP means before present, I have added a link to the page explaining it. --PatClay 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

---

In the article:

"It is said that all gold found on earth (which forms approximately a single cube 20 m a side)".

Is that 20 meters or 20 miles?

---

From above, it would be metres, and my understanding is that it would be more like 75 metres to a side in any case, but that depends if we are talking about bullion reserves, or all gold mined, but it is certainly not all gold on earth (including found but unmined reserves), it seems too small. Octothorn 12:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

"Total world gold production from its beginnings in prehistory through 2000 was conservatively estimated to be 142,000 t (fig. 1). This cumulative production is equivalent to a cube of gold 19.4 m on a side." This is from the top of page 8, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-303/OFR_02-303.pdf Butterman, W. C. and Amey, Earle B. III, Mineral Commodity Profiles–Gold, Open-File Report 02-303, U.S. Department of the Interior: U.S. Geological Survey. Other parts of this publication use "m" to refer to meters, as in "Modern methods in France and elsewhere have increased this (beating a troy ounce of gold into thin sheets) to about 18 m2 and sometimes more."Jimtpat (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I've added references to the cowrie shells and imitations to the "commodity money" section of the article. Feel free to elaborate on those if you have good historical sources (academic works, that is, not TV shows). I don't otherwise understand the general complaints above and below, as there is extensive and high quality discussion of coinage, commodity money, barter, and credit money. The credit money part is controversal, but not rubbish: More comments on that below.

Perhaps these complaints reflect that the article should have a better introduction. If people agree on this feel free to propose an introduction, or I will.

Meanwhile, I recommend removing the disclaimer that the article "needs attention" as it is an excellent, well above average article and readers shouldn't be discouraged from consulting it.

198.91.39.109 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

In the last section the following claim is made: "Also the French word for money, Argent, derives from the Greek άργυρος, and translates also to silver." Surely "argent" it is from Latin "argentum"? Does anybody know the etymology for certain? Rhyolite 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Credit Money 2 Rewrite Ideas to make WP better than NOVA 3 Well Well Well... 4 Good Article nomination has failed 5 Paragraph Deletion 6 Comments 7 Merge from Social evolution of money 8 Creation of money 9 I= Mark of the Beast? =I

[edit] Credit Money

The section on Credit Money in the article is largely rubbish.

There should be some mention of fractional reserve banking in the example section, since that's the only way a bank can lend out someone else's deposits. A 100% reserve would not permit the money to be loaned out without the permission of the owner.

The writer also neglects to mention that the writing of the cheque changes the ownership of the coins, so they are still only owned by one person - you should have them in your account when your cheque is cashed, since they no longer belong to you, so they should probably remain there for the short time until they are reallocated.

It is true that the loaned coins will probably wind up back in the bank again, allowing the reserve requirement to be met more easily, but those loaned coins being returned to not increase the levels of the reserves. I offer a (probably unnecessary) example.

Let's say that I am a very small bank. I have one dollar of deposits and the bank has a 50% reserve requirement, so I loan 50 cents of that dollar - the maximum at this reserve level, which returns to me as a deposit (best case scenario).

I still have only one real dollar in reality, but I now have $1.5 in deposits against 50 cents in loan. I can only lend another 25 cents before I meet my reserve limit. So I lend it, and it comes back in another deposit. Now I have $1.75 in deposits and 75 cents loaned out, but still only one dollar in balance. I can only lend 12.5 cents, etc. In reality, I can only have a maximum of 1 dollar loaned out for every 2 dollars in hand.

Ergo, that part of the Credit Money in this article is really about fractional reserve banking, is poorly written in either case, and should be either removed or moved to fractional reserve banking.

Also I propose the following for the opening paragraphs of that section...

Credit money often exists in parallel with other money such as fiat money or commodity money. Most of the western world's money is credit money derived from national fiat money currencies.

A debt is not money. Debt can not act as a unit of account. All debts are denominated in units of something external to the debt, and so do not affect demand for money (one million dollars is not created when you write it on a cheque, for example). Nor can they be used as a store of value, since the credit is only a reference to money stored elsewhere. Hence credit money is not money, but is a reference to monetary units that already exist prior to the creation of the credit.

Octothorn 12:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many theories about credit money, and I can think of hardly any aspect of it where experts all agree. Feel free to add any theories you think are missing and important, and to reword as theories anything you think is improperly worded as fact. I agree with most of the additions proposed here, except that most of the statements of supposed fact, such as "debt is not money," should be stated as "many economists believe that debt is not money," or similar, if that is in fact the case.

198.91.39.109 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I propose deleting the section on credit money and replacing it with this:

Credit money often exists in conjunction with other money such as fiat money or commodity money, and from the user's point of view is indistinguishable from it. Most of the western world's money is credit money derived from national fiat money currencies.

In a modern economy, a bank will lend all but a small portion of its deposits to borrowers, this is known as [fractional reserve banking]. In doing so, it increases the total [money supply] above that of the total amount of the fiat money in existence (also known as M0). While a bank will not have access to sufficient cash (fiat money) to meet all the obligations it has to depositors if they wish to withdraw the balance of their cheque accounts (credit money), the majority of transactions will occur using the credit money (cheques and electronic transfers).

Strictly speaking a debt is not money, primarily because debt can not act as a unit of account. All debts are denominated in units of something external to the debt. However, credit money certainly acts as a substitute for money when it is used in other functions of money (medium of exchange and store of value).

Reasons: 1/There are other articles on money supply, fractional reserve banking etc, and I don't think we should replicate them all through wikipedia, just link to them. 2/The explanation of credit money was not good. 3/Other people appear to agree with me on at least point 3.

If anyone has concerns, suggestions or amendments, speak up and we can work on them. Otherwise I will make the change in a few days.

--PatClay 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes made as no dissenting views were heard.

--PatClay 17:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite Ideas to make WP better than NOVA

I think we should explain clearly that barter has the problem of "double coincidents of wants". To solve that problem, people begin to obtain highly marketable goods for use as exchange medium. Competition naturally sets in as people attempt to discover which commodity functions the best as money. All throughout the world, precious metals, particularly gold, emerged as the best functioning money. The world wide gold standard was a naturally occuring phenomenon. In the 19th century, under this standard, prices were very stable, and the standard of living increased very rapidly.

Banks originate as a safe place to store gold, and the issure paper warehouse reciepts. Because (and only because) these reciepts are redeemable in gold, the paper notes are traded as money. Ludwig von Mises, through regression analysis, proved that money MUST originate as a valuable commodity.

Fractional reserve banking originates by bankers printing up "extra" reciepts, that is reciepts that are not backed by gold. It is counterfeiting with a fancy name. Bank runs are the market solution to this, and bankers hate bank runs, and turn to government to try and legitimize fractional reserve banking.

Governments sieze control of money in a 3 step process. 1) Monopolizing the minting of gold coins. This makes "coin clipping" (inflation) possible. 2) Monopolizing the printing of paper money, which is redeemable in gold. 3) Outlawing monetary gold, and requiring all people to accept paper money in payment of debt, regardless of what contracts may have required. (pure fiat money)

In general, I think the reader would appreciate understanding that gold is free market money, and that pure fiat money can only exist under force, not on a free market.

Comments?

TruthSeeker1234 05:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Money (or, if you prefer, "proto-money" or "collectibles" or "valuables") is beneficial when a transaction would otherwise require a double (or more) coincidence of wants. The problem arises in any in-kind transaction, such as the payment of a legal fine or tribute or a mortuary distribution (inheritance) or bride price, not just in barter exchange. This is important because in hunter-gatherer societies and in many neolithic societies shells (which have the best monetary properties where the working of precious metals has not yet been discovered) and the like were or are often more frequently used for these other purposes than for trade. These cultures did't have anything resembling efficient commodity markets. The use of shells is common in cultures on opposite sides of the planet that separated at least 60,000 years ago, (and see the evidence of worked shells from Blombos Cave etc. that date back from 30K-75K B.P.), so this all started tens of thousands of years before there was anything resembling efficient commodity markets. This doesn't make Menger's analysis which you relate wrong -- an efficient barter commodity market would give rise to an intermediate commodity, or money -- but this not the actual historical trajectory of the development of money because there were far older problems that required solution to the double coincidence problem. The current WP article (but not NOVA) I think explains this fairly well, but might benefit from the addition of some or all of my explanation given here. The NOVA article does mention some particular kinds of proto-money and money that might also be worth mentioning in the WP article, but I don't think this is crucial.

[edit] Well Well Well...

Somtimes the history of monry is un-avalible because it never going to happen... 100 years from now and theirs going to be another and weirder history of money and we wont fully understand the first meaning...You see time just never waits...

I don't think conspiracy theorists are required here.

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for History of money has failed, for the following reason:

Following WP:WIAGA,

1a) The prose in this article is not up to a "compelling" standard and many passages are difficult to follow. The lead section, for example, contains grammatical errors, such as a missing space after a full stop.

1b) Lead section should be more focused, a true introduction to the structure of the entire article. The article itself is well-structured, with each idea flowing naturally into the next. The etymology section is out of place, as the article regards the history of the concept of money, not the word money itself. Consider moving the majority to Wikitionary (where word etymology is recorded), and integrating revelant pieces into the main article.

1d) Jargon is frequently used without enough background for a lay-reader to understand it from context. Some examples: "touchstone", "coincidence of wants"; compare with the sufficiently explained jargon "fiat" and "fractional reserve banking".

2b) Very few inline citations.

2c) The main source the article appears to have drawn from is a [self-published paper]. This means it has not been peer-reviewed or fact-checked, and should be used only with caution and after comparing to other sources. See WP:RS

3) Coverage is sufficiently broad. As a suggestion, the origins and history of modern financial entities (e.g. stocks and bonds, mortages, national debt) could also be included.

6a) Images are well-chosen, placement and quantity are good. The license tag of the image "Blombosbeads3.jpg‎" is obsolete and should be updated.

jwanders^Talk 20:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph Deletion

The use of proto-money may date back to at least 75,000 B.P., when shell necklaces were made in Blombos Cave in South Africa. These necklaces would have provided the basic attributes needed of early money. In cultures where metal working was unknown, shell or ivory jewelry were the most divisible, easily storable and transportable, scarce, and hard to counterfeit objects that could be made. It is highly unlikely that there were formal markets in 75,000 B.P (any more than there are in recently observed hunter-gatherer cultures). Nevertheless, proto-money would have been useful in reducing the costs of less frequent transactions that were crucial to hunter-gatherer cultures, especially bride purchase, splitting property upon death, tribute, and intertribal trade in hunting ground rights (“starvation insurance”) and implements. In the absence of a medium of exchange, all of these transactions suffer from the basic problem of barter -- they require an improbable coincidence of wants or events.

I deleted the paragraph above because of the bias inherant in the dating. Nobody really knows for a historical fact of any dates prior to about 4000 B.C., and thus, although citations may be available, confirmation is impossible. Jason Hommel 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The dates are based on radioisotope dating described in peer-reviewed literature, thus are well confirmed. So I'm reversing. What is the significance of 4,000 BC? 67.188.125.25 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also updated for the more recent discovery dating beads back to 100,000 BP, and added a link to the jewellery article which discusses historical and contemporary observations of monetary use of jewellery. 67.188.125.25 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

There needs to be a short explanation of "proto-money" when the word is first introduced.

This is difficult to read: Chinese produces metal imitations of cowrie shells and metal tools that may have been the precursors of coinage.. Changed, PWC

The paragraph after The following example illustrates this. is not written in an encylopedic tone and needs to be amended. I suggested substituting you for a third person example. The story is altogether told too colloqiually. Addressing the reader directly is often a poor practice.

The paragraph beginning with The word money in Greek language is confusing; please clarify it. Rintrah 07:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone even care about this article? I hope my copy-edits were not in vain. Rintrah 10:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I care. I think the subject is a pretty important one. I fixed one of your problems, I will have a look at the credit money part, the greek, well, that is over my head. Your work is appreciated. --PatClay 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I am reassured. I was beginning to worry because there was little action since I first encountered the article. The paragraph written with "you"s most desperately needs correction. Rintrah 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your correction to the "cowrie shells" section makes it much clearer and is much better written. Good work. Rintrah 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the grammar and phrasing in the sections on Indo-European and Semitic words and took out the sections of New Testament explanation which are only tangentially related to the topic. [[User:Womzilla|Womzilla], 2 Jan 2007.

[edit] Merge from Social evolution of money

• Merge Social evolution of money repeats much information already contained in this article and seems to be based on a single reference. --SueHay 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of money

The a article doesn't explain how money is created through debt. Brian Pearson 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I= Mark of the Beast? =I

User Xicsies believes that the book of Revelation predicts that the "Mark of the Beast" will be a form of money, and that this should be included in the History of money article. User:Andrew c and I (--Wragge 14:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) dispute this, and I'd like to request that Xicsies address our concerns before any further reverting or deleting take place. We feel that:

• A) The citation offered (either in Greek or English) doesn't back up the claim being made. That is, a violation of WP:V or WP:NOR.
• B) That even if the Mark of the Beast is money, it doesn't belong in the "history of money" article, any more that every contencious passing reference to money in any scripture or fiction does. It is off-topic here, and should be fought about in the Talk:Mark of the Beast page.

The possibility that the mark of the beast is money is already mentioned in the Mark of the Beast article. And it is part of the history of money what the early Christian community (as long as any other community of course) believed about money. Xicsies (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument so far given by Xicsies (in the summary history) for keeping this passage is that it wasn't challenged for twenty months. I'm sure we can find many articles containing irrelevant passages of personal views & original research with a longer lifetime: preserving them isn't Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is inherently dynamic, so there's no possible argument from incumbancy.--Wragge 14:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree you can find articles containing irrelevant passages with long lifetime, BUT, you can also find much more articles containing passages with long lifetime that are credible. This can easily be proved using statistics, so statistically your argument does not make sense, and statistically I am right. I recommend you to deal more faithfully with any long standing quote.Xicsies (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Give a source, or its original research. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)