Talk:Money/Archive 2

message: The section on Money Supply should be deleted or greatly shortened, as there is now an article on money supply.  The discussion on money supply is more of a policy discussion, rather than a definitional or working disucssion of what money is. Jason Hommel 05:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Money Supply

message: The use of the word "commodity" is often used in a derogitory manner and is also inaccurate when talking about metals in "early money".  Metals were not commoditites when first used as money and in fact, metals were very hard to produce and not freely traded as is required for something to be a commodity.  I would like to see this section rewritten with the word metal replacing the word commodity in most (if not all instances). Carbonate 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework "commodity money" language 

message: Money is at its root a tool to facilitate trade between people.  This often includes trade that governments would like not to happen.  It is however in the peoples interests that this trade continues and to that end, money should be anonymous and free of government tracking.  Almost all money today is anonymous with the rare exception of specially marked bills.  There are even websites set up that attempt to track dollars as they move about the economy and show just how anonymous any given bill really is. Carbonate 20:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymity 

message: I was just explaining to someone that money is information and wanted to refer him to this article, but it turns out the word 'information' doesn't even appear once in the article. I thought that was the primary purpose of money - you make some effort, don't get any goods in return, but a piece of paper (or whatever) proving that you have done a certain amount's worth of goods or services or whatever. When a society gets too big for people to rememeber who did what (or even know each other) you need this more abstract of information. Do I get this right or was my economy education a wasted effort? :) DirkvdM 06:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money is information 

message: User:Omegatron just suggested splitting off a section of the article exclusively devoted to English-language slang terms for money.  I support this, with the possible caveat that the information might be more appropriate for wiktionary anyway.  Any objections?
RandomP 17:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary might be more appropriate, but this definitely doesn't belong here, and the values do belong in the other article. — Omegatron 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say be bold and go ahead with it - if there's any opposition we can always have a discussion later, though this is a clear case of WP is not a dictionary. RandomP 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting off slang terms for money 

message: See the version in question.  There were serious formatting problems, but far more serious WP:POV and WP:OR issues.  I left a note on the user's talk page.  That said, some of this info may be a good add, if sourced and researched.  I know there was an RfC on this, and I'm not too farmiliar with it, so I wanted to note my reversion here, and leave it to those more farmiliar with the issue.  AubreyEllenShomo 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I removed some edits by Goldassayer about The Power of Money on 13 November 2006

message: I was casually reading through this article when I came across this section.
From 1980 to 2001, gold was a poor store of value as its own value was unstable due to the manipulations of the worlds central banks conspiring to manipulate the market by selling their reserves to keep the price down.; gold prices dropped from a high of $850/oz. to a low of $255/oz., and that is also being measured in terms of dollars that were also losing value, so the 1980 high might be more like $1600/oz., but a precisely accurate amount is nearly impossible to measure. The advantage of gold and silver, however, lies in the fact that the supply cannot be increased by dishonest bankers. In 2006 they were running low on gold and silver with which to manipulate the market, and the debt overhanging the fiat money fractional reserve system will soon deflate. This will cause the buying power of silver and gold to rise to extreme levels at first, and then to be used as money until the next system of fiat money, or fiat electronic credit is imposed on the world.
This section seems to scream, "The evil capitalist central bankers are trying to take over the world, but hold on to hope, because they will destroy themselves soon enough!!!"  Yes, that was an exaggeration, but it is a conspiracy theory.  Perhaps these things did occur, but I see no evidence of this in the article.  The way this section is written decreases its credibility, and predicting the downfall of the current monetary system is problematic at best.  Would someone like to edit this section, or should it be deleted?Happytrombonist16 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to clean it up just there. I still think the quality of what's left is pretty bad. I'd recommend someone more articulate than me to rewrite the section entirely. --Tilmitt 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the, "Problems with gold as money" section 

message: I would say 99% of vandalism is done by anonymous IP addresses. And since I don't know what the benefit is to allow annonymous edits to Wikipedia, I say you should be required to register to edit. What would be the problem with changing that policy? I don't even want to think how much time is wasted by reverting silly vandalism. Dullfig 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism is out of control on this page. For lack of anything better to do, added to Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages.MArcane 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I found that the page is in the :Category:Religion, and am in the process of adding all such pages to the worklist of that project. Personally, though, I have trouble seeing how it actually falls within that category. I have added the banner to the talk page here, simply on a pro forma basis, and will remove it happily if it is found inappropriate. Should that be the case, however, I would request that the page be removed from the Category mentioned, as I'm not really sure of that category's direct applicability. Badbilltucker 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the category. Don't see how it is related. Dullfig 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Money is related to religion in a number of ways, most notably 666 in Revlation Chapter 13.  However, the Bible has lots to say about money, and one of the main features of today's modern religious wars is the argument over what should be money. Jason Hommel 07:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Is this page in the Religion Category? 

message: I moved several paragraphs from the introduction to the section on history.  They were great.  However, there was a concluding paragraph as follows:
The value of money depends on what it can purchase, not what it is made of. This is illustrated by the fact that when huge quantities of gold and silver were discovered in the New World and brought back to Europe for conversion into coin, the purchasing power of those coins fell by 60% to 80% because the supply of goods for sale did not keep pace with the increased supply of money. The ultimate backing for money is the productive capacity of society. 
I deleted this paragraph as it is a not a neutral point of view, it has a definite point of view, and it makes too many argumentative and decidedly debatable statements.  You could just as easily say that the value of money depends on what society values, and not what it is made of.  Finally, the final sentence does not relate to the first part of the paragraph; it is a modern doctrine of the value of paper money, but simply does not belong here. Jason Hommel 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit: Moved info from Introduction to section on History 

message: The deleted para is directly based on material from John Galbraith's Money: Whence it Came p.20-21. It is a simple historical fact and there is nothing argumentative or debatable about it. Rather than simply rejecting it on vague basis, I suggest you explain more clearly what bothers you about it so we can explore middle ground.
Yes, you could very well say that the value of money depends on what society values -- that is the basic fact which is usually lost sight of. Therefore this para is important to raise the issue of the ultimate basis for the value of money. I agree that the concluding para does hang a bit but the issue of what is the ultimate basis for money needs to be raised and addressed in this article. There I am splitting it into two separate paras, expanding the second and reinserting them both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garryjacobs (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore para to intro 

message: Many thanks to whoever rewrote the two sections about the problems with money.  They are MUCH better.  I also like the addition of the History section.  It keeps all the relevant information in the article while making the introduction a true introduction rather than a dissertation.Happytrombonist16 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Money 

message: The entire paragraph titled Social Evolution of Money is, like, New Age mumbo-jumbo and could be deleted without loss.  The paragraph "Many people have the misimpression" is biased.  I'm not familiar with the whole world, but in the USA most people used for currency either gold silver and copper coins or certificates claiming to be redeemable in such on demand.  So I'm going to delete both of these.
I really like the direction the opening paragraphs have gone; much better than they were several months ago.  The definition of money is very good, considering the subject's complexity and potential controversy. Novel-Technology 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A popular Wikipedia term for such things as "many people" is weasel words. They are considered a Bad Thing. Notinasnaid 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If the section is back, the weasel words need sorting, so I will seek a suitable tag. Notinasnaid 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Evolution of Money 

message: needs mentioning of how marxism sees money 69.251.20.244 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  marxism 

message: Most Libertarians will say fiat money has NO intrinsic value, however they are incorrect.  Paper money just has an extremely low intrinsic value.  In periods of hyper-inflation paper money has been used as wallpaper, toliet paper, to start fires, blocks of bound bills have been used as building blocks for children.  When the printing presses run 24/7, eventually money is only printed on one side because of the cost of inking and moving bills, in which case the value of the money has hit its intrinsic value.~ender 2007-03-09 21:50:PM MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiat/Paper Money has intrinsic value 

message: Wasn't sure where to post this, perhaps you can help out, this is a documentary on how money is created, and a brief history of it, all in simple english easy to understand for anyone. It shows how evil and corrupt the system is and a way to change it for the better before its too late, watch it before critising it plz. 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=money+as+debt
Thematrix606 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money as Debt 

message: At first I couldn't figure out what had been done.  I decided the edits were:
* removed the  in favor of just having the links in the headings.
*:I think I can like it, though the extra linking was at least explicit.
* changing the headings from formatted list to explicit section titles
*:Ick, twice over.  First, the TOC is now cluttered with internal 'points'. Second, now there are [edit] links on each internal list point.
* shortened text on point 2
*:Err, I kinda liked the links to trade and barter.  This information may be present in the linked articles, but the existing statement is just too short now?
Anyway, thought I'd mention what I saw, for the likely "what the hay changed?".   Shenme 06:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Money#Characteristics]] 

message: There seems to be significant duplication between these two sections.  I don't know enough about wikipedia to combine them without leaving a remnant of one behind, but they should be combined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.62.70 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics/Desirable Features