This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fiat money article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Given that the debate above is valid and backed by strong resources, Better change the title of the page to Fiat Currency. Particularly, a section can be dedicated to explaining the difference between fiat currency, currency, and Money. BSamanJaved ( talk) 02:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Goldberg wrote:
Monetary economics has an ideal construct of its own. It is what economists call "fiat money." This is an object that has no intrinsic value and is not convertible into anything. An implicit assumption in the definition is that no one is forced to use such money and that the money has no other legal status such as legal tender. Acceptance of such money is entirely discretionary and based exclusively on the expectation that others would accept it too, even though no one else is forced to accept it (Wallace 1980).
So user:37.39.214.247 needs to show how the current text fails to summarise those words with reasonable accuracy. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Fiat money generally does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value. It has value only because the individuals who use it as a unit of account – or, in the case of currency, a medium of exchange – expect that others would accept it too as a medium of exchange.1
Fiat money generally does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value. It has value only because the individuals who use it as a unit of account – or, in the case of currency, a medium of exchange – agree on its value.1 They trust that it will be accepted by merchants and other people.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fiat money article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Given that the debate above is valid and backed by strong resources, Better change the title of the page to Fiat Currency. Particularly, a section can be dedicated to explaining the difference between fiat currency, currency, and Money. BSamanJaved ( talk) 02:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Goldberg wrote:
Monetary economics has an ideal construct of its own. It is what economists call "fiat money." This is an object that has no intrinsic value and is not convertible into anything. An implicit assumption in the definition is that no one is forced to use such money and that the money has no other legal status such as legal tender. Acceptance of such money is entirely discretionary and based exclusively on the expectation that others would accept it too, even though no one else is forced to accept it (Wallace 1980).
So user:37.39.214.247 needs to show how the current text fails to summarise those words with reasonable accuracy. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Fiat money generally does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value. It has value only because the individuals who use it as a unit of account – or, in the case of currency, a medium of exchange – expect that others would accept it too as a medium of exchange.1
Fiat money generally does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value. It has value only because the individuals who use it as a unit of account – or, in the case of currency, a medium of exchange – agree on its value.1 They trust that it will be accepted by merchants and other people.