Talk:Private currency

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Early threads

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The deleted para is too strong only where it wasn't false.  Paul Beardsell 01:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal tender, debt and repayment 

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Trade Turnover in Private Currencies 

message: 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)
replies: text: That in itself does not constitute private currency. I need more information about it to know for sure whether it is or is not private. JHMM13(Disc) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hong Kong dollar]]s?

message: Removed, since:
*The currency is still GBP;
*The banks are required to hold BoE notes in a 1-1 ratio (IIRC), so there is no fancy magic going on, just a differently designed piece of paper.
118.90.113.2 (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland and NI 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion