Talk:History of money

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

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 25, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

History of money received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Numismatics Top‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

The shekel was not a token for barley

The article states that the shekel was "both a coin representing a specific weight of barley, and the weight of that sack of barley." But according to this article, the shekel was a unit of weight for metals, equivalent to about 11 grams -- like the modern "troy ounce". Thus a "silver shekel" was 11 grams of silver, usually in the form of a coin (a round ingot with government seal guaranteeing weight and purity); a "gold shekel" was 11 grams of gold. Neither "represented" anything; their value was the value of the metal. If there was a unit of weight of barley also called "shekel", it must have been a lot more than 11 grams... Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem absurd to claim that barley was worth its weight in silver - or even bronze, copper or iron. That paragraph ends with a citation "Kramer, History Begins at Sumer, pp. 52–55.", but that source makes no such claim. It does mention on page 260 that once, as a result of war, "prices rose so high that a shekel of silver could buy but half a sila of oil, half a sila of grain...", a sila being about half a gallon. This online calculator indicates that half a US gallon of barley would be in the region of 1.1 kg, so in a notably extreme situation, silver was worth 'only' a hundred times its weight in barley. That text was inserted in a large edit in 2017. NebY (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the sentence since it was not supported by any source. Alaexis_¿question? 20:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shekel, I presume, was the name of the unit of account. Its value would originally have been set to equal a commonly used quantity of barley (also called a shekel) but it would have drifted over time. Think "pound sterling" rather than "troy ounce". In international trade a silver shekel would have had the value of its metal but in the issuer's jurisdiction it would be worth more. I don't think the author of that line @Christopher Theodore had a good understanding of unit of account. Wingsail (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're all overestimating the value of gold & silver in the Bronze & Iron Ages... And projecting more modern Age valuation upon these metals.

Metal to make weapons & tools was more valuable than gold & silver in those earlier Ages.

I am not in error. Christopher Theodore (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited as a criticism of my citation was written in the 1900s and is describing a skelel in a much more modern Age, not related to the time period Rome first started using 'signed bronze'.

My reference came from that Bronze Age subject matter. Christopher Theodore (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google turned up plenty of resources for this search term:

babylonian grain and silver standards

You people failed to do your homework. Christopher Theodore (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't waste another moment here.

My time is better spent denouncing this garbage pile of an "encyclopedia".

Enjoy the propaganda machine while it lasts... Christopher Theodore (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current Monetary Value of Gold - US Dollars

There is a lot of confusion in both the article and the talk page trying to hype up the 'market value' or 'commodity value' of gold & silver.

The current 'monetary value' of 1 Fine Troy Ounce of Gold in US Dollars is only: $42.2222

The 'commodity value' and stable fixed statutory 'monetary value' are NOT the same.

We should ONLY be looking at 'monetary values', not 'market values'.

In truth, metal coinage — in ancient historical views — are the same as paper notes.

In ancient Babylon, if there was no grain stores due to famines... a shekel wasn't worth a shekel.

The silver coin was worthless if it could not be redeemed in the grain asset backing it. Christopher Theodore (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional Reserve Banking & Credit Creation

Fractional Reserve Banking only existed in the US between 1913 and 1934, when it catastrophically failed (Banker's Holiday) and was replaced by the New Deal's Credit Creation System.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/03/kumhof.htm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477

Christopher Theodore (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both excellent papers, which point out that Fractional Reserve Banking was never how banks worked. Some people thought it was, and now some people think they work by Intermediating Loanable Funds, but it's always been Credit Creation. Wingsail (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Section

This website and the links to its reference materials should be reviewed and guide the development of this section.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Aes%20Formatum

Specifically the creation of the Latin term 'fiat money', which is originally referring to the aes signatum. Granted, the Ham. Code is the oldest "official decree" creating money, however the word 'fiat' comes from Rome.

The corruption of this word should not be allowed to taint this article. Christopher Theodore (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This paper examines the Roman laws ("official decrees") creating Roman fiat money.

It also supports the connection between the barter system and fiat money of Rome, which is asset backed fiat money.

Bertol, A. & K Farac. "Aes rude and aes formatum – a new typology" in VAMZ, 3. s., XLV (2012).

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/documents/BERTOL_FARAC_Aes_rude_and_aes_formatum.pdf Christopher Theodore (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold and Silver coin was not used by Rome until much later. Bronze was the main metal used for most of Rome's existence. Christopher Theodore (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links contain the words "fiat" or "asset". Did the Romans use the term "fiat money" at all? It looks to me that these aeses are simply commodity money, which has no relation to modern fiat money and very little to asset backed money. Asset backed fiat money seems to me an oxymoron. Wingsail (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 appears to do nothing to support Overview

Ref 4 is a link to a few paragraphs about the code of Hammurabi, and says nothing at all about money, let alone money of account or money of exchange. This seems to just be an erroneous reference? Jwgealt (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]