Whether paper or stone or shiny metal, all currencies serve the same purpose. When a society reaches a certain size and complexity, the need arises for “storage”of wealth. We store our wealth in green paper and account numbers, the Yap store theirs in giant stone discs. In a barter system without currency, there could be no established “market value” for an item, as each transaction would be an unique negotiation depending on what each party has to offer.
In my eyes, the Yap currency system is at least as sensible as that of the U.S. Think of the “money” in your checking account. How much of that “money” have you physically seen or touched? The only thing you really “own” is a number in a computer. I think I may feel more secure in my wealth if it were represented by some giant stone wheel, even if it were in my neighbor’s yard, at least I could still keep an eye on it. Also, consider the instability of the value of even the physical manifestation of the U.S. currency you may have in your pocket. The value of these green papers that we take for granted is really backed by nothing other than the good word of our government, who last time I checked owed over $10 Billion to China (whatever that number means). At least if my wealth were represented by stones, I could be pretty confident in its value. If I have a big stone, it will always be worth proportionately more than a small stone, but my $100 dollar bill is pretty much guaranteed to decrease in value over my lifetime.
The biggest issue with the U.S. currency system is that there is really no limit on how much money could be printed. In a gold standard system, the country’s gold reserves determine how much money they can print, thus keeping inflation in check and affirming the value of the money. Yap’s currency has a similar limitation; the stone from which it is made is not fond on the island, assuring that a person would need to accumulate enough real wealth to send workers to convert that wealth to currency. Whatever substance backs the currency is not important, as the substance only has value because it is significantly difficult to obtain and accepted by the society as the standard of value. It is the expense of obtaining the gold (or limestone) that affirms its value and assures that real wealth backs the currency.
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 
Such a brilliant opening paragraph, Sam. It takes for granted, and urges the reader to do the same, that societies aren’t much different if we spend a little time to recognize our universal human needs. I almost completely agree with your claim about market value (and I certainly appreciate your clear explanation of it) but I think that even with currency, our system permits a good deal of negotiation too, because market value is local. Today in South Jersey a farmer will get widely different prices for a squash, depending on what farmers’ market he’s attending.
In your second excellent paragraph, I almost completely agree that the value of currency is backed by nothing other than the good word of the government, with this reservation: if the government defaulted on its loan from China, we’d still use dollars at home to buy our groceries, wouldn’t we? Regardless of the government backing, the currency functions as long as citizens agree to accept it as payment. As for the value of the big stone, owners of big houses have seen their wealth halved. The proportionality of their new poverty is not much consolation to them. These ideas you’re illuminating are fascinating and not found in your classmates’ essays much, Sam. Does the physicality of the stone count for something? Does it suffer from inflation? Can it be invested for profit the way my dollar can? Is credit available to the Yap?
I agree the gold standard is a clear distinction, but its difference today seems at least as ludicrous as the fei do when we first encounter them. If it were universal, the country with the biggest gold reserves would be the richest on earth, right? And if it couldn’t defend itself it would soon be attacked, occupied, and defeated by a more powerful country or a coalition of such countries and plundered for its “wealth.” Can you think of a contemporary parallel to this situation? Do we measure wealth in oil reserves (petrodollars)? Do we use it as a currency? We don’t (because it’s a consumable, I guess), but in Abu Dhabi, they certainly live as if it were.
Fascinating stuff, Sam. Thanks.
LikeLike
Since there is no “Money Revised,” this is your version for a grade, Sam.
LikeLike