Money seemed like an object you can hold and possess to me before, but after reading the stories of the Yap Island and the United States and French with the labeling of the gold that has changed. the people of Yap believing their large rocks held value and made them wealthy shows how money isn’t an object you can hold, it’s an idea you believe in. If you have no belief in the idea of money it holds no value, but since people believe it holds value it becomes valuable. Money is really just a piece of paper completely worthless without the belief of it being valuable. Just as the French believed they had gained value in gold for a cabinet marked for the French in the United States’ possession, it had all been because they believed they had gained value and money. The belief factor also caused the U.S. to feel they lost money and gold even though they technically still had possession of the gold.
It’s the same way when it comes to faith, anything people can’t see, or seemingly meaningless objects that all hold value and are important because of the belief people have put into them. Money would just be stupid pieces of paper if we didn’t have the idea in our head that it’s worth a lot of value. The Yap Island story, along with the others examined, really showed me how belief in something creates value for that object or idea. It also presented the fact that the more people accept and belief in the value of that idea the more it will become accepted throughout the world. It changes from just a belief to common knowledge that is never thought twice about, or even questioned to be crazy or unethical at all. This creates a very intriguing view about how important belief is and the power it holds over our entire world.
612119d
bluntwriting88
capched
cardinal7218
cfriery
chavanillo
Chris McGee
christianity19
clementine102
comicdub
compiistudent
corinnebuck1219
daphneblake25
dayzur
g903254
gabythefujoshi18
goldin92
gooferious
hailthegreat8
hazelnutlatte123
honeysucklelilac
icedcoffeeislife
imgoingswimming
iwantpopsicle
doorknob9
BabyGoat
jeffbezos123
jets1313
johnwick66
justheretopass
kobebryant32
kowiklinski
l8tersk8ter
aquarela
metro111c
mrmba1
mysterylimbo
nina525
nousernamefound1
nyaj32
oaktree1234
pardonmyfrench13
person345
pomegranate4800
Jessicariccio
rosekyd
rowanrat
rowanstudent24
runnerd4
shadowswife
SmilingDogTheProfWants
sonnypetro29
tcarter101
thecommoncase
wafflesrgud22
wazoo1234
yourfavoriteanon
Counterintuitivity 
Brett, to be clear, you’ll need to be more careful with the language of your claims. Money is certainly an object, regardless of the stories of Yap, don’t you think? It may also be a concept, but dollars and fei are still physical and can be held. They can be labeled too, as you say, so their ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on physical possession. A tag can indicate who owns it.
So when you argue that since the Yap believed their large rocks held value you’ve decided money can’t be held, I can’t tell what you mean. On the other hand, when you say it’s an idea to believe in, you seem to indicate there are physical and conceptual components to money.
A piece of paper worthless without belief is still a piece of paper, and a very convenient paper because of the idea it represents. Right?
Your “Just as the French” sentence needs a complete overhaul. And I don’t think you gain much clarity by forging a new term “the belief factor” either, although it would make a good title for a TV episode. What you want to express with “the belief factor caused the US to feel they had lost money,” is that money measures transactions, and that one side has to give up value for the other side to gain it when money changes hands.
I understand what you want to say about faith, but your next paragraph doesn’t actually refer to different kinds of faith. Money doesn’t work unless people have faith in money. That’s certainly true. What doesn’t work if my faith in something else (you don’t say what else) disappears? Baseball cards are pretty worthless pieces of paper until somebody is willing to pay a lot of money for them. And by and large the only reason they’re willing is that they have faith that somebody else will pay them even more for them. I couldn’t use baseball cards to buy my groceries though, unless the grocer agreed to their value. Money is convenient because we all agree what it’s worth. Is that faith? If so, faith in what?
Your second paragraph should be two paragraphs, each developed. Expand and clarify the notion that the peculiar idea to value a rock or a slip of paper takes time to develop and then becomes second nature. What steps are required? Doesn’t each new abstraction have to prove itself? If the first grocers refused to accept fei, would they have caught on? If 1930s American banks had refused to redeem dollar bills for gold, would grocers have accepted them?
LikeLike
The value of money is based on the idea of it being valuable and measuring its worth, just as if you took a chicken and the value it has. The value of the eggs and the meat of the chicken people can see as valuable, so wouldn’t you be able to use that as tender to buy other supplies you need? If the cashier sees the chicken as valuable and worth value, then could you pay them in that instead of cash for the materials you are buying. Why does it have to be a piece of paper that is used to show value instead of in this case a chicken. It’s the basic faith and belief in everyone of the united states of how worthy money is, but we could all just as much believe in the same way as the worth of a chicken, just like the yap did with the rocks. So the idea of money as being valuable and the idea of a rock being valuable are very similiar as long as the people of that area belief it is.
LikeLike
This is fascinating and entertaining, Brett. You took my advice extremely seriously, not just using an animal as an example, but recommending it as actual currency. Very funny. I see you’ve also posted a Money Revised, but let me offer you some feedback here (which you’re welcome to incorporate in to your MR post, if you wish).
First I want to strenuously discourage you from using second person “you” language in an academic essay. It’s almost always unnecessary and always a bad idea. It’s too casual, often sloppy, and involves your reader unnecessarily in arguments she has no business being in. Just take my word for it for now, if you can. I’ll explain at length if you ask me.
While we’re getting rid of the “yous,” let’s also trim the language to what’s needed. You have a good idea to share, but your wordiness dilutes its strength and the more words you use, the better the chance you’ll use one that confuses your readers.
The value of money is based on the idea of it being valuable and measuring its worth, just as if you took a chicken and the value it has.
The value of the eggs and the meat of the chicken people can see as valuable, so wouldn’t you be able to use that as tender to buy other supplies you need?
If the cashier sees the chicken as valuable and worth value, then could you pay them in that instead of cash for the materials you are buying.
Why does it have to be a piece of paper that is used to show value instead of in this case a chicken.
It’s the basic faith and belief in everyone of the united states of how worthy money is, but we could all just as much believe in the same way as the worth of a chicken, just like the yap did with the rocks.
So the idea of money as being valuable and the idea of a rock being valuable are very similar as long as the people of that area belief it is.
I hope it’s illuminating, not frustrating, to see your sentences so completely transformed this way, Marty. I’m not asking you to write like me, but I do want you to consider whether your writing can be clearer. Does this help?
LikeLike