The study of commerce could take up a semester’s-long course in it of itself, where from the philosophy of money to the functionality of it serves to be examined. Money cannot just be “created” and used, however; it must be influenced by the type of society in which it is being crafted for and how the government there is run. America has the benefit of being a Capitalist society, where we prefer to keep the government’s hands out of our pockets (with an exception to taxation, unfortunately). Here, money is the focal point of our greatest successes and worst falls, and has become what we base out lives around every day. To anyone thinking these representational pieces of paper really serve no “point” or meaning, and that the concept is flawed, well spend a day on Wall Street, take a glance at a few conglomerates, and play in the New York Stock Exchange a little; the money system is important, and a war in itself.
The idea of Yap is interesting, as it can show that this civilization is finally evolving; money and a commerce system is a stepping-stone of social reform, and on an isolated island with no real contact to the rest of the developing world it is rather amusing that they would follow the same path as American settlers. The Yap recognized that money represents power, wealth, and authority; not just anyone can be rich, basically. In America, regardless of what people “choose” to believe, money is authority; those with wealth got there somehow, and usually from some form of work and dedication, and therefore understand how the world works. As such, more power to them; they’ve earned it and the privileges wealth entails. See, that is what money really represents; yes, these pieces of paper and coinage are meant to be “how much you have,” but not really; it’s a power game and a necessary part of society. Yap recognizing this all on their own says quite a bit on the human condition, really. Money is merely a way to show strength.
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 
I love the way you stomp across the globe, Tony, but do be careful where you put your foot down, please, and take care not to crush those of us who don’t understand all that you do. When you patronize us with language like “See, that is what money really represents,” readers who are not obligated to keep reading, and those who don’t know what a generous soul you actually are, may take offense and go in search of more egalitarian texts.
Just a couple of specific notes about using too many words. Your version of this habit is different from others’. Many writers simply bore their readers by spending 100 words on a 10-word idea. You sometimes confuse us with one extra word or two, more out of imprecision than excess.
Money can of course be created. Both the US and Yap are good examples of created money, as you note, I think. When you say it can’t be created and used, I don’t think you mean it can’t be created and it can’t be used, but I’m guessing. I think you mean that its crafting is deliberate, and its adoption takes time, that it requires the cooperation of everyone to recognize its value, that sort of thing, as the rest of your sentence indicates. But the first clause, especially with its quotation marks around created, are hard to read right.
Secondly, you’re too smart to confuse the several ways in which people might say money is meaningless, but your essay can’t decide which one it means. One way is to say a dollar has no meaning (no functional value, say) the way a cow has meaning; in other words, it’s not an inherently valuable commodity except as a symbol of purchase power. The other way is to say that nobody’s opinion is more valuable (or that no person is more valuable) just because that person has more money. I guess a third way is more of a personality pose than a way of thinking, on the order of “I value things other than money. Money has no meaning to me.”
Be sure you don’t mix up the meanings.
LikeLike