Stone Money-dunkindonuts

Stone Money

P1: Money is more than just a simple slip of paper. When ideas become present, questioning the actual worth of money, it doubts what money is to a bigger scale. To this day, people are characterized by the amount of money they have. Yet again, bringing up how money really affects each of us. On the other hand, in order to get any goods, the system of trading comes into play, using the resource of money.  By doing so, you need to have something somebody else is willing to take in place of what they are giving to you. It eventually got to a point where one’s persons belongings did not fit the need to another’s, leaving them with nothing to trade. Since this has gotten more of a struggle than a convenience, it led to the point of creating an easier way to share their wealth.

P2: There are many unusual forms and sizes of money. Specifically, in the NPR broadcast of “The Island of Stone Money” discussed how the island of Yap “needed something that everyone agrees you can use to pay for stuff.” Gradually, the question of how important money is, started to increase the more I read about it. It eventually got to a point where one’s persons belongings did not fit the need to another’s, leaving them with nothing to trade. It eventually got to a point where one’s persons belongings did not fit the need to another’s, leaving them with nothing to trade with. When researching, I learned that people were given the title of being “wealthy” even though their riches were at the “bottom of the sea”. I wondered how could that be? It seemed as if this was something fictional. Like others I started to have the sense of not believing in the dollar bill. Even the Federal Reserve believed currency was weaker because of “some marks on drawers in a basement”. It came to the littlest observations that changed the thought process of the wealth that was acquired. The money system has been fabricated to make everyone believe that everything they have is real causing, giving many the false belief that they do not have the fortunes they wish for. This has caused me to believe that people presumes money exists for the sense of comfort.

P3: While reading this information, its brought me to think what paper money actually is and how it has come to have such an immense value.  Money is only a piece of paper that people all over, carry around in order to get something in exchange. When digging into the history, it shows an evolution in not only in size, but also its importance. In the article “The Island of Stone Money”,  Milton Friedman talked about how there were stones with a “diameter of a foot to twelve feet” long from the island Yap. These huge stones was being used in order to pay for something they wish to have. Having to bring around a source of money that was bigger than the consumer itself, becomes a little outrageous.

P4: Instead of dealing with enormous pieces of stone, the Chinese started out with coins with holes in the middle. Whenever they needed to pay, they would bring a rope with a tie at the end in order to carry each coin. Eventually, the weight of carrying around thousands of them got too heavy causing them to make another way of payment. This is where they started to create the trail of paper money.  It first started with bags of coins to which consumers did not want to carry around with them anymore.Then, they decided to create a piece a paper, given the amount of money they would pay back to the seller since no one would lug coins around. This idea gradually kept growing to the point the government had to step in and create official slips of paper with real value of money. From there, the creation of paper money only expanded.

P5: Paper money was not the end if it, the digital scheme of money has also become a popular way of paying your dues. Yet, in reality, it is just “numbers back and forth in the computer.” Still, what does that all really mean? It creates the idea of money always being available and now worth something. In the article written by Jeff Reeves, he talks about how there is “no true value” to this digital money and is risky to participate in. It’s the banks telling you, you have a certain amount of money in your account leading to the thought of always having money available and feeling safe. Yet, you do not know if there would be any glitch with the system to have you believe otherwise. If problems like those occur it could lead to no faith in the system, making the significance of money to decrease.

P6: Before researching, I was skeptical of what money actually was and why it affects everyone so greatly. My original thinking did not reach as broad as the information I found, but had me realize that there is not an exact value of money. We can spend it as we want and get what we want in return, without anybody stopping us. Whether you pay online or with paper money, in the end it is just a number representing its so-called “worth.” I now see the value of money being nothing but a sense of comfort for people’s everyday needs.

Works Cited

ExtraCreditz. “The History of Paper Money – II: Not Just Noodles – Extra History.” YouTube. YouTube, 08 Oct. 2016. Web. 22 Jan. 2017.

Friedman, Milton. “The Island of Stone Money.” The Island of Stone Money; (1991): 3-7. Web. 20 Jan. 2017

Glass, Ira, Chana Joffe-Walt, Alex Blumberg, and Dave Kestenbaum. “423: The Invention of Money.” This American Life. Prod. Planet Money. 7 Jan. 2011. This American Life. Web. 20 Jan. 2017

Reeves, Jeff. “Bitcoin Has No Place in Your – or Any – Portfolio.” MarketWatch MarketWatch, 31 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Jan. 2017

This entry was posted in A01: Invention of Money, dunkindonuts. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Stone Money-dunkindonuts

  1. davidbdale says:

    I appreciate the anecdotal explanation for the evolution of paper money, Donuts. Everything else about your essay needs a lot of work. I’m happy to help, but you’ll need to ask.
    Provisional Grade Recorded on Blackboard Grade Center.

  2. dunkindonuts10 says:

    I have updated my paper.

  3. davidbdale says:

    Dunkin, it’s hard to explain in just a few words why you’re having trouble earning a respectable grade on this essay, so I’m going to deconstruct the first paragraph and take things one at a time.

    P1: Money is more than just a simple slip of paper. When ideas become present, questioning the actual worth of money, it doubts what money is to a bigger scale. To this day, people are characterized by the amount of money they have. Yet again, bringing up how money really affects each of us. On the other hand, in order to get any goods, the system of trading comes into play, using the resource of money. By doing so, you need to have something somebody else is willing to take in place of what they are giving to you. It eventually got to a point where one’s persons belongings did not fit the need to another’s, leaving them with nothing to trade. Since this has gotten more of a struggle than a convenience, it led to the point of creating an easier way to share their wealth.

    One sentence at a time.

    S1. Money is more than just a simple slip of paper.

    Perfectly fine. Makes a simple declarative claim. But it’s also a promise. You must now demonstrate that money is more than paper.

    S2. When ideas become present, questioning the actual worth of money, it doubts what money is to a bigger scale.

    I’ve tried hard to understand this, but it makes no sense at all. How do ideas become present? Ideas about what? Who questions the worth of money? What mysterious “it” doubts the nature of money? What does “a bigger scale” mean?

    S3. To this day, people are characterized by the amount of money they have.

    Your “to this day” means that something has been true for a long time, maybe wrongly. But there’s no historical context for your comment. Are we talking about the development of an idea of wealth or value? Notice how many time phrases you use. (When / To this day / Yet again / It eventually got to the point / Since / it led to). You appear to be tracking some sort of development, but there’s no indication in your first three sentences what that might be.

    S4. Yet again, bringing up how money really affects each of us.

    This is not a sentence. Your “yet again” indicates that you’re repeating an earlier claim or pointing to another example of something you’ve noted before. But it doesn’t refer back to anything earlier.

    S5. On the other hand, in order to get any goods, the system of trading comes into play, using the resource of money.

    Your “on the other hand” indicates that you’re comparing this need for money as an exchange for goods with something else, but there’s nothing in sight to compare it to.

    S6. By doing so, you need to have something somebody else is willing to take in place of what they are giving to you.

    You’ve mentioned “the sytem of trading using the resource of money.” Now you say you “need to have something somebody else is willing to take.” But the purpose of money is to solve the problem of what you have since everybody will take money. I’ll try to interpret that comment generously.

    S7. It eventually got to a point where one’s persons belongings did not fit the need to another’s, leaving them with nothing to trade.

    Your “eventually got to a point” again indicates you’re trying to chronicle some sort of evolution of a process. But you seem to be going backwards. You start with “using the resource of money,” and move back to a time (before money) when belongings were not an effective way to trade (making money necessary).

    S8. Since this has gotten more of a struggle than a convenience, it led to the point of creating an easier way to share their wealth.

    Someone must have told you to use a chronological sequence in essay writing, Dunkin. Your “since this has gotten . . . it led” are attempts to show a developing problem.

    I’m going to share with you what I think your paragraph means. I’ll leave as much of it intact as I can, but I’m going to reverse much of the sentence order.

    Money is more than just a simple slip of paper. It’s a measure of wealth. Because our culture values wealth, people are characterized by the amount of money they have. How much we have doesn’t change who we are, but it does affect how much we can buy. Early humans had to trade goods for goods, but to do so, they had to have something another human was willing to take. When one person’s belongings didn’t fit the needs of another’s, no transactions could occur. Until the invention of money, trade was difficult. Today, everybody wants money, and trade is infinitely easier.

    If that’s accurate, I hope you can see the distance between our versions. You might also notice that the first four sentences have almost nothing to do with the last four sentences. You’ve been trying to mashup two topics.

  4. davidbdale says:

    I’m going to impose some order on your P5, Dunkin. It wanders from observation to observation, leaving readers to wonder why they’re reading about digital transactions. You forgot to tell them why. The fix is pretty easy, as I hope you’ll see.

    P5: Paper money was not the end if it, the digital scheme of money has also become a popular way of paying your dues. Yet, in reality, it is just “numbers back and forth in the computer.” Still, what does that all really mean? It creates the idea of money always being available and now worth something. In the article written by Jeff Reeves, he talks about how there is “no true value” to this digital money and is risky to participate in. It’s the banks telling you, you have a certain amount of money in your account leading to the thought of always having money available and feeling safe. Yet, you do not know if there would be any glitch with the system to have you believe otherwise. If problems like those occur it could lead to no faith in the system, making the significance of money to decrease.

    First, sentence by sentence:

    S1. Paper money was not the end if it, the digital scheme of money has also become a popular way of paying your dues.

    You haven’t said that digital money is more abstract than paper money. You haven’t said that digital money is riskier than paper money. You just say it’s new. Readers will have to guess why you mention it.

    S2. Yet, in reality, it is just “numbers back and forth in the computer.”

    Again, you’re making no judgment about digital money, just stating a fact.

    S3. Still, what does that all really mean?

    Your readers are wondering the same thing. You should have told them by now.

    S4. It creates the idea of money always being available and now worth something.

    Before digital money, paper money WAS always available, assuming you had some. Do you mean that digital money is a lie? That it FEELS AVAILABLE even when it’s not? Like owning blank checks? Or an ATM letting you overdraw your account when you’re out of money? Your point is unclear.

    S5. In the article written by Jeff Reeves, he talks about how there is “no true value” to this digital money and is risky to participate in.

    Whatever you meant, that’s not what Jeff Reeves means. He means there’s no government or bank to stand behind the currency if people lose faith in it.

    S6. It’s the banks telling you, you have a certain amount of money in your account leading to the thought of always having money available and feeling safe.

    I think Reeves was talking about Bitcoin or digital currencies that banks don’t handle. But now you seem to be saying our bank accounts are unreliable. That’s a very different matter.

    S7. Yet, you do not know if there would be any glitch with the system to have you believe otherwise.

    A glitch in the system that makes our money unsafe would be a banking error. It has nothing to do with the faith people have in money.

    S8. If problems like those occur it could lead to no faith in the system, making the significance of money to decrease.

    Now I’m totally lost. I thought Reeves meant Bitcoin and you meant bank errors, but the value of money would never decrease because of a bank error. So I’ll try to impose my own kind of logic on your paragraph to demonstrate that readers can be guided to draw the conclusions we prefer. First I’ll read the Reeves article.

    Paper money is not the most abstract currency, and it’s not the most dangerous. For a good scare, we can all swap our dollars for Bitcoins. No government or bank stands behind the digital currency; they’re literally just “numbers back and forth in the computer.” Their value is decided by how many a group of anonymous hackers produce, and how many “greater fools” we can convince to buy the Bitcoins we own. Jeff Reeves knows there’s “no true value” to this digital money and warns investors to avoid it. Having a big stockpile of Bitcoins might make us feel rich, but if hackers break into our accounts and take them, nobody will come to our rescue. They’re anonymous and untraceable, which also means they can’t be retrieved. If that happens to a few big investors, faith in the whole system will crash and Bitcoins will be worthless overnight.

    Mostly I want you to see that if we tell readers in the first sentence that something is abstract and dangerous, then reinforce those ideas with every new sentence, the point gets across really well.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s