Talk:Metallism

'Metal as Money' vs 'Metallism'[edit]

Is there any reason why this article should not be merged with metal as money? Farolif (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case can't think of one. The scope of this article fully ecompasses metal as money , so all the content could be transfered across. Definetly we should keep the main article titled Metallism, as it is a widely used term in history and anthropology. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Note to self - should be something about Schumpeter's distinction between Practical & Theoretical Metallism here.John Z (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus appears to be that we should merge metal as money into this article. I will redirect metal as money here, and editors can merge content as they see fit. LK (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copper[edit]

What about copper? Hasn't that been used as money at various times & places? (February 21, 2010)

The copper cash coin was the standard unit of currency throughout most of the history of China. Some mention of this should be made in the article. LK (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CANNOT be True![edit]

the value of the currency derives from the market value of the commodity upon which it is based independent of its monetary role

If the value of a gold coin is the same as that of the unminted gold from which it was made (the market price of gold), then the minting of coins would occur only at a perpetual loss. As nobody would ever do such a thing, coins should not be minted & therefore should not exist. As coins do exist & minting is not a losing endeavour, the value of coins CANNOT be determined by their composition. Metallism fails to account for the evidence. Its predictions are contradicted by the evidence.

Vilhelmo (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant advantages to be gained from minting metals into coins, ingots, or bars. Minting yields increased storage capacity, portability, and purity for re-melting purposes. Minting is NOT the losing endeavour your argument tries to claim it is. Farolif (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Farolif You obviously either didn't read or are unable to understand my previous comment.

I did NOT claim that minting coins is a losing endeavour. Rather, I claimed the opposite. Because the minting of coins is NOT a losing endeavour, it follows logically that the value of any coin cannot be determined by the material from which it is composed & therefore "commodity money" does NOT exist. Coins are fiat, just as all money is. Vilhelmo (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is your argument lacks logic. How can a coin made of 1g of gold be worth any more or less than 1g of gold for any sustainable period? If fiat assigns a value to the coin of less than 1g of gold, then people will hoard the coins for their commodity value until the minters either lose their supplies (effective bankruptcy), or agree to increase the coins' value to encourage their circulation. If fiat assigns a value to the coin of more than 1g of gold, then people will create identical coins of gold for profit, again until the minters either go broke from redeeming more coins than were alloted, or decrease the coins' value to discourage their reproduction. Farolif (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say that a 1g gold coin is worth 1g gold is to say nothing. Government fiat assigns value in money not gold. As in a Gold Standard when the government sets, by fiat, the price of gold in money. What I'm saying is that if the mint pays the same market price for raw gold as they sell the finished coin for, as Metallism implies, they would operate at a loss. If a lump of gold is worth the same as a gold coin why waste the time & money minting coins at all? - by Vilhelmo. 24.36.14.161 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a venue for debating the logic or validity of metallism. It's for discussing sources, structure, and other editorial issues related to crafting the article describing what it means. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]