Talk:History of money/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about History of money. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Ideological confusion
The article thoroughly mixes several definitions of money, without warning the reader that they come from very distinct and often opposite economic theories. It also gives undeserved weight to some marginal theories, like "Austrian Economics" and Graeber's theory of "Debt money". It should be reorganized and sectioned according to said schools. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I inserted such a warning as the Theories of Money section. An Austrian hijacked it, but the second paragraph is mine (except the last line, blech). In my view it is not just an economic theories problem; there are different kinds of money (not just different definitions) with their own histories and that is not understood. Fixing it is a big job and doing it to everyone's satisfaction will be tricky.
- Debt money is not originally Graeber's and is not marginal, it is the money we have and have had—as Keynes said—for at least 4000 years.
- See, I told you it was tricky. Wingsail (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Tally sticks
The article assumes without evidence that prehistoric tally sticks were records of debt. (That is probably taken from Graeber's "money frmo debt" theory.) But tally sticks can be used to count many, many other things. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how I read it. You could add something about calendars if you like. Wingsail (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
ATTENTION! ERROR - The History of Money is NOT the History of Coinage
The first sentence contains a major error. It reads,
- "The history of money begins around 2500 years ago with the first minting of coinage in about the seventh to sixth century BC"
This is patently false. The history of money is not synonymous with the history of coinage. It is widely accepted that money originated as a unit of account in the public sector temples & palaces of bronze age Mesopotamia.
Sources:
- The Archaeology of Money by Michael Hudson
- The New Economic Archaeology of Debt by Michael Hudson
- Role of Accounting in Civilization's. Economic Takeoff by Michael Hudson
- Creating Economic Order: Record-Keeping, Standardization and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East (ed. with Cornelia Wunsch), (CDL Press, Baltimore, 2004).
- Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East (ed. with Marc Van De Mieroop) (CDL Press, Baltimore, 2002).
- Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East (ed. with Baruch Levine) (Cambridge, Mass: Peabody Museum (Harvard), 1999).
- Privatization in the Ancient Near East and Classical Antiquity (ed. with Baruch Levine) (Cambridge, Mass: Peabody Museum (Harvard), 1996).
Vilhelmo (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, and the problem is not only with the first sentence. For example the commodity money section still assumes that barter preceded commodity money. Alæxis¿question? 11:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. And in 2024, that mention of barter systems is still there. Tut tut. Summerdoor (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Creation of money
The a article doesn't explain how money is created through debt. Brian Pearson 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The use of double entry accounting is not a thing of the history of money, it is at best a very recent development.
- Money of account had originally been a single entry accounting system, and debt was not used to create it until around the 1900s AD. Christopher Theodore (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
ALL Money is debt, period.
This article is so full of misinformation I'm not sure where to start. All money is a debt of the issuer, whether its stamp on metal, paper, wood, makes no difference at all. The history of coinage is not the same as the history of money. Vilhelmo (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- You say that money is dept. But if I have some gold and go to the bank and get some money for it, where is the debt? Actually, there is none.
- We also say that a state owns the national bank all the money. But is it true? I doubt it, because a state can't have any debt. It's one of the main purposes of a state to finance infrastructure, schools, aso. In fact people do some work and get paid, either directly from a state or from a private person. So there is no dept.
- Debt exists only if you give money for nothing (this is usually called loan or "credit"), or if you do some work and don't get the money (this is debt in common sense). But it makes no sense to distinguish between the national bank and a state, a national bank can't operate independently, the politics and the currency are totally connected. If not, you see what happens in Europe right now: The system crashes. The solution would be either one united European government (actually like in the USA!) or getting back the national currencies.
- I repeat it: The separation of religion and state is very useful, but the separation of national bank and state isn't useful at all. It's rather a practical joke. It's just talking...blablah "debt everywhere"... very unreal.
- Conclusion: NO money is debt if it's no credit/loan. Period. --178.197.224.225 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Positive entries on a ledger are 'money of account': money.
- Negative entries on the ledger are 'debt of account': debt
- A negative number is NEVER a positive number.
- People need to stop con-fusing these terms that are diametrically opposed.
- Debt is NOT money, money is NOT debt.
- Single entry accounting, on a ledger at a city state's temple/treasury, recording a deposit of grain, created money of account for the depositor. This is before deposit tokens not made of metal or metal tokens (coinage) were even created. Christopher Theodore (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Further, the 'debt of account' in the history of money was not a monetary debt owed, it was the assets deposited at the treasury that were owed.
- A shekel was a term for a measured weight before it was a silver coin. i.e. ounce, pound, litter, etc...
- If I deposited 2000 shekels of *barley* grain in Babylon, I would be given 2000 silver coins and could redeem them in 2000 *shekels* of wheat grain, or take them to the market, trade them for goods and services and those people could come and redeem these silver coins for grains. Christopher Theodore (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- "but if I have some gold and go to the bank and get some money for it, where is the debt? What does selling gold or anything have anything to do with the nature of money?
-"because a state can't have any debt" What? Why would you think such a thing when a brief glance at reality proves it false?
The rest of your comment is gibberish. Vilhelmo (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
If I possess a 10-euro note, who do I owe? Who owes me? If it is an asset to me, I can expect to exchange it on demand for gold or other goods and services. When I do so, I exchange one asset to another. That 10-euro note never becomes a thing that is promised to anyone else until I contract a good or service. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)