Talk:Private currency

Early threads

The idea that the Joule can be used as a unit of value is highly unconventional and untested. I think it merely confuses the issue. As such the following paragraph is painful and I think it should be removed or heavily edited.

It is possible for privately issued money to be backed by any other material, although some people argue about perishable materials. After all, gold, or platinum, or silver, have in some regards less utility than previously (their electrical properties notwithstanding), while currency backed by energy (measured in joules) or by transport (measured in kilogramme*kilometre/hour) or by food [2] is also possible and may be accepted by the people, if legalised. It is important to understand though that, as long as money is above all an agreement to use something as a medium of exchange, its up to the community (or to the minority which holds the power) to decide whether money should be backed by whatever material or should be totally virtual.

Terjepetersen 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)----

Do you talk about Joule, wich is not private at all, in this article because no other space is available in the free encyclopedia to talk about it? Have a look at the following chapter about private, alternative and community currencies.

Olivierchaussavoine 08:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

____

Have a look here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Money&oldid=12197078

This paragraph is visible since 11 april 2004! Do you imagine how many people have read the paragraph and how many agree with it (as long as they didnt delete it)? The money article passed also through Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive and this paragraph still remains! Who are you to delete such a long standing paragraph? A poor workman blames 15:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

See below discussion. Paul Beardsell 20:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

____

I am well aware of the history of the Money article. The part that I objected to in the paragraph deleted was the assertion that the Joule is ever likely to be a unit of value. There is no precedent in history and the Joule is not even a good that is bought and sold on any market. If the assertion was that a "Joule of Electricity" or a "Joule of Oil" was likely to emerge as a form of money then it might make some more sence but even then I find it highly improbable. Oil is generally measured in Barrels not Joules. I would find the deleted paragraph more acceptable if it were a quote something like "In his book 'Energy and Money' Fred Smith suggested that the Joule might be a good form of Money". Terjepetersen 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice remarks regarding "Joule of Electricity" or "Joule of Oil". Listen to me. Money can be ANY marketable good or token used by a society as a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account. Anything. Do you understand that, do you agree with it? If yes, then whatever has the above three properties can be named money. A poor workman blames 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly oil could be money, and possibly the unit of measure for that money could be the joule. But if for X to be an example of Y it must have properties P, Q and R is not the same as saying that all things with properties P, Q and R are examples of Y. I'm sure if only those who had come up with the three criteria had been asked they would have added a 4th: Money can't be dirty, sticky, smelly and liquid. Economists do not say all things with the three properties are money, they say money has the three properties. Paul Beardsell 08:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

APWB - I agree that Money can be any marketable good. However some are not likely. For instance you are unlikely to find ice cubes being uses as a form of money even though they are a marketable good (my local service station sells them in bags). I have a more serious problem with money being kilogramme*kilometre/hour given that this simply isn't a marketable good. Where can I buy a kilogramme*kilometre/hour? The reality is that no such good exists and it certainly can not be stored, boxed or delivered anywhere. As you did with the Joule it needs to be properly qualified. Terjepetersen 08:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

When you buy a ticket to go from Paris to New York by plane, you buy 75kgr * 3628 miles/ 2 days = 136050 kgr*miles/day. When you want to go by boat , then you buy 75 kgr * 3628 miles / 20 days = 13605 kgr*miles/day. Some one could say that a boat or a plane are the safes where we can store that kind of money. It is actually a market based on tickets. This is how I understand that sentence. A poor workman blames 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are both missing a tiny detail. The paragraph says: "while currency backed by". The paragraph assumes that we are talking about paper money backed by any other material except gold or silver. Not fiat money. A poor workman blames 10:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Your example is a good overview of the fact that kgr*miles/day is not terribly fungible. The market value on the plane ride will differ significantly from that on the boat. And a plane ride from Sydney to London versus Sydney to Hong Kong will show that the market value of the service is not divisible in the manner that monetary goods normally are. Also there is no scope for storage as it's a service not a good, if I buy it I can't resell it later as it is consumed so it can't be a store of value. I think that the example is extremely poor and I see no point in retaining it within the article so long as far better examples exist. I would rather an example about how rum was used in the early NSW colony or how cigarettes are used in prisons or you could mention how grain was used in Ancient Eygypt. In order to retain the example of kgr*miles/day I think that it should be either as a quote of some specific author or else as an example from history. Otherwise it seems to be more POV than factual or informative. Terjepetersen 12:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

legal tender, debt and repayment

I have removed this para from the end of the article:

Though these private, especially digital, monies has had some modest success, governments have established a coercive monopoly on what currency may be used in lending by enacting legal tender laws. One may borrow a private currency but repay the loan with a legal tender that has subsequently devalued against the private alternative, with the lender being required by law to accept it. This large and apparently insurmountable risk to lenders severely limits the proliferation of private money, as the interest rate would have to be exhorbitant to compensate for this tremendous risk premium.

Who says legal tender laws say a private currency may not be used for lending? This is contradicted within a sentence by the assertion that a loan of private currency (haha!) is always repayable by law in legal tender. Which I dispute. References required. And, should I choose to accept the repayment of a loan of private currency in some other commodity / currency or even in legal tender, who says the exchange rate is mandated at the time the loan is made? "Insurmountable risk"? No. Paul Beardsell 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not polite to delete paragraphs from an article without discussing them, especially in case they have been visible a long long time before you discovered this encyclopedia. Imagine how many people have read the paragraph and as long as they didnt remove it, how many agree with it. So please be carefull next time, and avoid deleting long standing paragraphs without discussing it first.A poor workman blames 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above by Poor Workman has been annoying me all morning but the rebuttal is simple: Just how many more people do you wish Wikipedia to misinform before we fix the article? Paul Beardsell 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Edit boldly" is supposed to be the Wikipedia mantra. I did not set out to be rude, I deny rudeness. You say I am not polite. I disagree. But if I have to choose between politeness and accuracy I know which wins every time. (Both, by preference, if possible, but if I have to choose.) Now, I have put the paras here for discussion. I have said why they are wrong. Now, discuss that, rather than resort to ad hominem attack. Pretty please. Paul Beardsell 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The para is wrong (which is a matter for discussion, perhaps) and self-contradictory (no discussion reqd). I have removed it pending discussion. Paul Beardsell 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth I agree with the edit made by Paul. I think the original paragraph overstates the nature of legal tender laws. Obviously it depends on the juristiction. However I know that in Australia the legal tender laws still allow you to construct a contract that must be settled in some other means. For instance if an Australian contract says that the debt must be paid in US dollars you can't front up with Australian dollars and claim that because they are legal tender the other party must accept them. Personally I don't like legal tender laws but the article was too strong in its claim. Terjepetersen 20:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The deleted para is too strong only where it wasn't false. Paul Beardsell 01:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Private currency, alternative currency or community currencies

There seems to be some overlap between these two terms. Can someone please explain if there is a difference and if so, what? Should alternative currency be merged into the private currency article. Or should they remain two articles but with some of the information about measuring money in Joules be moved to "alternative currency" --nirvana2013 12:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the differences are so important. However, why do we oppose, private and non private currencies? They are all owned by a community of economic actors, and US dollar is considered by some as a "private currency" arguing that US treasure is a private institution. We could use a more general word, like "community corrency" for example, that would not restrict the use of a currency to a national community with the following advantages:

→. would include all categories private currency, alternative currency, currency,

→. would open the rigid debate opposing national and non-national currencies,

→. would let a place to exist on this encyclopedia for other currencies used around the world by hundred of communities that are not owned by any a private economic actor,

The real stake is related to the power of money, and ideas that ask questions about it.

Should wikipedia remain silent on about non national currencies? -- Olivierchaussavoine 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No Merge: Private Currencies and Complementary Currencies are both forms of Alternative Currency, but are quite distinct from each other and do fully merit independent articles. A private currency is available for use by a select group (such as members of an organization, patrons of a business, etc.) whereas complementary currencies are generally accessible to anyone within a given region. The three articles all need some considerable content and editing work, but that will not be better served by merging them into one article. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also articles, complementary currency, local currency, free banking.

Private currency is according to this article not only usable to a private group of people, it is used by everyone. The word private aims att the issuer, not the users. It's rather LETS systems that are used by a closed private group (and often also only local). You have to join to be able to use LETS. Is there not a distincion between local currency used by everyone at that locality, and currency that is used only by a private group of users? Local currency method issues banknotes, LETS does not and thus requires membership.

This article Private currency could be reserved for seriously privately issued currency that is legal tender, or close to being that, and usable by everyone nationwide. (Then very related to the free banking article). Najro (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Trade Turnover in Private Currencies

Somebody had reduced the amount of trade conducted in private currencies from billions of US dollars worth per annum to millions per annum. I have reverted this back to billions. I thought some comment was desirable. There are many privte currencies in use. E-Gold is just one of many. The statistics page for e-gold shows a turnover per 24 hour period that is typically valued between US$5-10 million per day[1]. Even if the average was as low as US$3 million per day this would still put annual turnover in the billions of dollars worth. And e-gold is only one such currency. Terjepetersen 13:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong dollars?

Most Hong Kong banknotes are issued by banks after paying a deposit to the government. Does that make HK$ a private currency?WP 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That in itself does not constitute private currency. I need more information about it to know for sure whether it is or is not private. JHMM13^(Disc) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland and NI

Removed, since:

• The currency is still GBP;
• The banks are required to hold BoE notes in a 1-1 ratio (IIRC), so there is no fancy magic going on, just a differently designed piece of paper.

118.90.113.2 (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger of article Complementary currency

I oppose the proposed merger. Complementary currencies are not “private currencies”. They serve a different (although sometimes similar) purpose. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Complementary is the least used phrase I've run into - and these are the returns I got just on google web:

• 31,700 for "complementary currency"
• 78,200 for "alternative currency"
• 133,000 for "private currency"

Of course alternative currency and private currency both need better sourcing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger. Complimentary, Alternative, Local, Private, etc... while they are related and often overlap in meaning, the terms are not redundant, they are not synonymous. Each term carries unique nuances that deserve to be explained in their own articles, or stub articles at the very least.

The terms as I understand them from extensive reading on the alternative currency movement:

Alternative - any currency other than the mainstream official currency in common use. Complementary - a currency that circulates in parallel and simultaneously with another currency, intented to enhance and serve needs unfulfilled by the other currency, rather than displace or compete with it. Local currency - a currency intended to circulate only within a defined or limited geographical area, or is legally valid only within that area, typically a town or city-sized area, as opposed to a state, national or international area. Private - implies a currency issued by a private individual or business, as opposed to one issued by a public agency or government. Or, another interpretation could be a currency that is only valid within a defined circle of individuals or members, used for private exchanges between themselves, as opposed to a currency allowed to circulate at large to any member of the public who accepts it. (A currency might be issued by a private business, but allowed to circulate at large. A currency could also be issued by a publicly-funded agency, but circulate only within a select group of qualified members for a specific purpose, or only for specific goods/services. Both would seem to be "private currency". They might or might not be complementary to another currency, and may be localized or unlimited in geographic scope.) Solviva (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. See my points against merging in the complementary currencies talk page. I will remove the templates within a week if there are no objections. NittyG (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As it has been 2 weeks, I am removing the templates. NittyG (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A very old discussion, but it is worth pointing out that seven years later, almost every current example and indeed many of the historical examples in this article are complementary currencies, in most cases a local or community currency, or a business-based currency like frequent flyer miles. The same examples are mentioned in these other articles. The notable exceptions are Bitcoin and Angel Cruz' scheme. Speaking of Bitcoin, I would be reluctant to call it complementary because it seems designed not so much to be a complement to national currencies, as to circumvent and avoid them. On the other hand, Bitcoin and its kind are not private currencies either because they aren't issued by a business or organization, but by informal consortia of computer programmers, following an agree algorithmic scheme. They are something new. As for Cruz, that wasn't a private currency either, but a fraud or criminal scheme. Taking those two out of this article, which don't fit here anyway, I see no reason seven years later for this article not to be merged with Complementary Currency Person54 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC) (edited)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2010HSBCHKD50NoCY043464.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)