Stone Money – Nobinaryneeded

Infinite and Equal

P1. An infinite amount of one-dollar bills is equal to an infinite amount of one-hundred dollar bills. As a society, as a world, we are made to believe that a small piece of paper with a number on it is enough to give us what we need. We could have two one-dollar bills and be able to get a pack of gum and a water bottle. Meanwhile if one has the same piece of paper with a 100 on it instead of a 1, a purchase such as a small flat screen TV or an iPod. Nothing changed on the bill except a number, and even a small number can make all the difference in how much wealth a person in this world has.

P2. Located in the westerly group of the Caroline Islands, in Micronesia is the Island of Yap. In his paper, “The Island of Stone Money,” Milton Friedman tells about American anthropologist, William Henry Furness III’s experience on the Island of Yap. During his visit, he found the way the people of Yap used currency to be of interest. Described as “large, solid, thick, stone wheels, ranging in diameter from a foot to twelve feet,” Furness found the Yap’s money to be intriguing, wanting to figure out how this form of money came about for them. Due to the lack of silver and gold on the island, the Yap resorted to stone once they realized they needed a form of currency on their island so they could buy and sell. This money is also based on trust. A piece of rock, or money, fell to the bottom of the ocean years ago, though the islanders have never seen the money, they still respect that it belongs to someone and that they have that money. Much more trust in this society than most in the world.

P3. In countries such as the United States, one would almost believe that money is something sacred, the way you see people treat it. People kill for money in the United States, giving very little trust to those in possession of another’s money. In the podcast, “The Island of Stone Money,” Jacob Goldstein and David Kestenbaum discuss how economists love the island called Yap “because it helps answer this really basic question: What is money?” They also explain how on Yap; money doesn’t even need to be transferred from one person to another to change its ownership. All it takes is one transaction. They say, “One person gives it to another person. But the stone doesn’t move. It’s just that everybody in the village knows the stone now has a new owner.” This sounds like the ultimate amount of trust.

P4. Sometimes though, trusting people with money is not something that everyone can rely on. In Brazil, the government was able to trick 150,000,000 people into believing that their money had value. Inflation in Brazil, at 80% a month is through the roof, causing something as simple as a pair of sunglasses to be brought from $80 to $340 in a matter of six months. They could not find a way to stop the inflation. That brings this to a very intriguing point. Why is inflation even a concept? From the first paragraph where it is alluded that an infinite amount of one bill and an infinite amount of another are equal, it brings up the question: Is money real?

P5. Who is there to even trust if there is nothing to be trusted with? Like time, money can be seen as an illusion. A physical, tangible illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. We possess paper, coins, or in the Yap’s case, stones, that are worth everything, but if there’s too much of it, it is somehow worth nothing. The Federal Reserve of the United States is responsible for creating money whenever they want, yet the country is still fourteen billion dollars in debt. So why not print more? They do not print more because more money equals the value of it decreasing, yet the less we have, the more it goes up. So why do we not just print the fourteen billion we need to climb our way out of debt? No one really seems to have an answer for that.

P6. There’s a form of e-currency out there called Bitcoins whose value drastically jumps from the two-hundreds to the fifties. In the article, “The bubble bursts on e-currency bitcoin,” by Anne Renaut, she goes on to describe the digital currency as something “which was created in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis by an anonymous programmer who wanted a currency independent of any central bank or financial institution.” This is another way of proving that money isn’t real. Someone decided that they did not like the way their money was being handled, therefore they just created a new one. The way money is used here, the drops, the raises, the way it is handled is almost fictitious. It seems that if someone is not satisfied by the way their money is being handled, they change the value, or create something new. In what was does that have value?

P7. Back to the Island of Yap, they do not have debt, because how can there be a shortage of rock? Money on Yap is less physical and more transactional, based on trust where one can just say “this is yours now” and it will belong to them with no questions. Yap is a place built on trust, rather than America, where people need to see their money to believe that it’s there and valuable. There’s that classic phrase in movies and TV shows: “Show me the money.” The character in whatever situation they have found themselves in won’t do what they are being told to do until they see their reward, which is not something absurd, but when Americans hear about how the Yap deal with their money, it sounds absurd then.

P8. Money is nothing but a concept. Each place in the world handles it different, yet we all seem to think it is one of the most important possessions one can own, when in reality, if one thinks about it, money is an illusion. Tactile, but still, money is not real in the long run.

Works Cited

Blumberg, Alex, and Dave Kestenbaum. “Weekend At Bernanke’s.” Audio blog post. www.thisisamericanlife.org. N.p., 7 Jan. 2011. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.

Friedman, Milton. The Island of Stone Money. Feb. 1991. Working Papers in Economics E-91-3. The Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Goldstein, Jacob, and David Kestenbaum. “The Island of Stone Money.” Audio blog post. N.p., 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.

Joffe-Walt, Chana. “The Lie That Saved Brazil.” Audio blog post. www.thisisamericanlife.org. N.p., 7 Jan. 2011. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.

Renaut, Anne. “The Bubble Bursts on E-currency Bitcoin.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 13 Apr. 2013. Web. 21 Jan. 2017.

Weeks, Linton. “The Trouble With Trillions.” NPR. NPR, 22 Aug. 2011. Web. 22 Jan. 2017. http://www.npr.org/2011/08/22/139846133/the-trouble-with-trillions

Posted in X Archive | 2 Comments

Stone Money—nickalodeansallthat

How Paper is Heavier than Metal:
The Strange Concept that is Money

p1. Everyday we as people use or see money in some way shape or form. whether it be in actual paper notes or the more obtuse forms such as bitcoin or other types, money is apart of our lives. But does anyone really take the time to truly think about what the hell money even is? We use these paper notes to exchange goods like food or clothes, which can pose as an equal trade, but what about things like precious metals, that you would think would have more worth than a paper note, even when in bulk. Also consider abstract things, like how humans try and put a numerical value on things like nature. What got me thinking  into this is the article we read on the “Island of Stone Money”, or the island home to the Uap. These people use huge limestone discs that sometimes can not even be moved, they believe in the value of these discs no matter where they are. So to us, those that use dollars,yen, etc… this seems so odd and unconventional, but how different are we really? The actual concept of money, when you break it down, seems so odd it demands an explanation.

p2.For a good place to start this exploration ,we must go back to the island of Stone Money. As discussed the Uap use these giant stone discs as currency, but that isn’t the stangest part, the strangest part is about how much the island trusts this system.”My faithful old friend Fatumak, assured me there was in the village a near by family whose wealth was unquestioned…and yet no one, not even the family itself has laid eyes on this wealth”(Friedman 2) The island mutually respects that this family is the wealthiest family on the island, and the family’s wealth is said to be sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Even better yet, when the Germans came to the island, the way they got the Uap to listen to their demands was by simply painting on big black X’s on the stone wheels, thus, in the Uap’s eyes, devalued the money to nothing. Why is it that this primitive economic system can become nothing by simply changing one aspect about its currency, is money really that malleable?

P3. To answer this question this question, I’m going to pose another question. What happens when inflation in your county is so bad that something like a pair of sunglasses could cost $10,000 in two weeks? The answer is you make up an entirely new currency, and that’s exactly what Brazil did.”The four’s plan was allow the new currency to have an exchange rate to match the inflation with out putting people in debt, so you’d be paid 1000 URVs a month and milk would cost one URV, the next month it would be the same except, you’d get the original currency as change for the URV”(This American Life podcast 423). The rial is a fine example on what pushing currency to the limit does. The fact that inflation cause a group of four college students to make up a fake note and an exchange rate for that note and have it work really hammers home that modern currency and primitive currency, I.e. The Uap’s are not really that different in nature. The fact is that currency is just a tool for an economic system, which yea of course it is, but tools can be new and tools can do only certain jobs, the real point is that every economy needs the right tool for the job and while people like the Uap keep the same tool forever, counties like Brazil sometimes need new tools.

P4.A curious product of this concept of creating new tools is actually the Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a completely digital form of currency used on the internet for goods and services. The only difference between this made up currency and the rial is that the bitcoin wasn’t born out of necessity, it was just created as digital currency,exchange rate and everything.Bitcoin was a growing economy within the internet and more and more users did decide to dip their hands in it everyday,so how is it that some people just decide to switch over to something without having a sure idea where it’s going? Well the risk was not worth it because recently the bitcoin economy just had its first big crash. “The price of the virtual “geek” currency had soared through the stratosphere in recent weeks, trading for a high of $266 on Wednesday — only to come hurtling back to Earth in just three days.By Friday, a single Bitcoin was worth just $54, according to the Mt. Gox platform, which manages 80 percent of the Bitcoin transactions and had to briefly shut down trading Thursday.” Even from the beginning, some people had thoughts that something like this would happen at least a few times due to the nature of it being a privatized economy it was bond to burst.

P5. Why does it relate to the strange concept of money and its tool like qualities? It’s because, it’s too much like the incident with France when the US put gold aside and the market crashed, just on a much smaller scale. The actual concept of Money is a note or a tool that a group of government officials, college buddies, or some guy places a value on and the people trust its value with out considering what happens when it gets too big, or if we put away more gold than our actually currency can cover. Something similar to this is happening in Japan currently. Japan is fearing a currency war because the Yen has deflated immensely due to spending. “The yen skidded to a two-and-a-half-year low of 90.695 against the dollar Friday, which reinforced expectations for more monetary easing. The currency has slumped 11 percent against the dollar since early November as Mr. Abe stormed to an election victory in December with bold promises to end decades of intermittent growth”(NYTimes). The Yen has decreased so much that they need to reverse without changing the actual property of the Yen, or else they might insight a currency war.

P6. Money is so strange because with problems like in japan, and previous examples, like in Brazil, you can essentially just agree to stop using a currency for a new one until it balances out. Yet at the same time this could also incite an irreversible financial crisis all because the worth of some paper because too large or too small. That is the whole point of the oddity of money is that we as a country, or as people, put so much faith into a note without really thinking about it. I mean we pay for homes, and cars, and plenty of other things that, when thought about critically, seem way more valuable than the stack of papers sitting in our bank accounts. It’s almost miraculous that we, as people, pick some random thing, whether it be a paper note, a stone disc, chunks of data, or even shells, and decide that’s how our society will trade, especially when people value things differently than others.

Works Cited

Friedman, Milton. The island of stone money. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford U, 1991. Print.

“Japan Tries to Ease Fears That Its Policies Will Lead to Currency Wars.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 23 Jan. 2017.

Renaut, Anne. “The bubble bursts on e-currency Bitcoin.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 13 Apr. 2013. Web. 23 Jan. 2017.

“The Lie That Saved Brazil.” This American Life. NPR, 7 Jan. 2011. Web.

Posted in X Archive | 3 Comments

Doubting Gravity

Inevitable Coincidence

If you and I read the same book over the winter break—let’s say Emma Donoghue’s  Room—without either of us having been instructed to do so, we might consider that a coincidence. But since the book has been at the top of the best-seller list and available at every checkout counter, at the airport bookshops, and heavily promoted on Amazon, it’s not that much of a coincidence. And since it’s been made into a major motion picture, again, the coincidence is less remarkable. In fact, the more popular or widespread a cultural artifact is, the less surprised we are to share it. Nobody has ever said, “I can’t believe you somehow discovered Game of Thrones! This is uncanny!”

But if the book is a little-known collection of cartoon art by a mostly forgotten artist from a century ago—say Krazy Kat and the Art of George Herriman—we’ll probably both be astounded and want to know how we came to the same place when so few others have arrived there.

Most likely, we’ll discover a similarity between us we weren’t aware of. Something else we share will explain our choice of material. Of such similarities, bonds are built.

My Chance Observation

On our first day of class, I suggested that if I were to fling myself out the window, nobody would look UP, wondering where I had disappeared to. We are, quite naturally, conditioned by years of experience (in my case decades of experience) to fully expect the bodies of our defenestrated professors to plummet DOWN or EARTHWARD. And we are fully confident that we can explain why they surrender to that coincidence: it’s because of gravity.

I used the example to demonstrate the certainty that we share what we call “common knowledge” about the workings of the world.

I further suggested that most of the time, we’re wrong. And that we’ll eventually be proven to have been so.

Such Similarities

Imagine my surprise when I began to read Chuck Klosterman’s But What If We’re Wrong? and found that he begins his book by questioning what we think we know about gravity.

How big a coincidence is that?

Not so big actually. Once we consider the circumstances, the odds approach certainty that Klosterman and I would share such an observation. I’ve been reading about counterintuitivity and the unexpected consequences of actions and causes for years, ever since I began to develop this course for my Rowan composition students. And Chuck Klosterman has made a career for himself questioning the obvious. So the only surprise is that I didn’t read his observation until today.

I did so standing in my laundry room, drinking coffee, and waiting for my pants to dry so I could remove them from the dryer before they wrinkled. (I’ll tell you why I included this visual detail shortly, in a lecture about Cows and Chips.) In case you’re wondering, this technique was very successful; my pants are dry, flat, and creased, front-and-back.

If Klosterman wrote his book standing in his laundry room waiting for his pants to dry, THAT would be a coincidence.

Global Coincidence

The only reason we all accept the notion (not the certainty, but the notion) of gravity is that we share the planet at this time. That the coincidence affects 7 billion people makes it no less coincidental.

  • Humans before us did not share our notion of gravity.
  • Humans who follow us will not share our notion of gravity.

We billions are THE ONLY HUMANS who will understand gravity as we know it.

  • And we are wrong, just as those who came before us were wrong.
  • And those who come after us will be wrong.
  • Until somebody gets it right?
  • No, until the end of time.

And if we can question our notion of gravity, we can question our beliefs (including our ironclad certainties) about absolutely anything.

Excerpt from But What If We’re Wrong?

Like most people, I like to think of myself as a skeptical person. But I’m pretty much in the tank for gravity. It’s the force most recognized as perfunctorily central to everything we understand about everything else. If an otherwise well-executed argument contradicts the principles of gravity, the argument is inevitably altered to make sure that it does not. The fact that I’m not a physicist makes my adherence to gravity especially unyielding, since I don’t know anything about gravity that wasn’t told to me by someone else. My confidence in gravity is absolute, and I believe this will be true until the day I die (and if someone subsequently throws my dead body out of a window, I believe my corpse’s rate of acceleration will be 9.8 m/s squared).

And I’m probably wrong.

Maybe not completely, but partially. And maybe not today, but eventually.

“There is a very, very good chance that our understanding of gravity will not be the same in five hundred years. In fact, that’s the one arena where I would think that most of our contemporary evidence is circumstantial, and that the way we think about gravity will be very different.”  These are the words of Brian Greene, a theoretical physicist at Columbia University who writes books with titles like Icarus at the Edge of Time. He’s the kind of physicist famous enough to guest star on . . . The Big Bang Theory.” For two hundred years, Isaac Newton had gravity down. There was almost no change in our thinking until 1907. And then from 1907 to 1915, Einstein radically changes our understanding of gravity: No longer is gravity just a force, but a warping of space and time.

And now we realize quantum mechanics must have an impact on how we describe gravity within very short distances. So there’s all the work that really starts to pick up in the 1980s, with all these new ideas about how gravity would work in the microscopic realm. And then string theory comes along, trying to understand how gravity behaves on a small scale, and that gives us a description—which we don’t know to be right or wrong—that equates to a quantum theory of gravity. Now, that requires extra dimensions of space. So the understanding of gravity starts to have radical implications for our understanding of reality. And now there are folks, inspired by these findings, who are trying to rethink gravity itself. They suspect gravity might not even be a fundamental force, but an emergent force. So I do think—and I think many would agree—that gravity is the least stable of our ideas, and the most ripe for a major shift.”

. . .

A post-gravity world is beyond my comprehension. But the concept of a post-gravity world helps me think about something else: It helps me understand the pre-gravity era. And I don’t mean the days before Newton published Principia in 1687, or even that period form the late 1500s when Galileo was (allegedly) dropping balls off the Leaning Town of Pisa and inadvertently inspiring the Indigo Girls. By the time those events occurred, the notion of gravity was already drifting through the scientific ether. Nobody had pinned it down, but the mathematical intelligentsia knew Earth was rotating around the sun in an elliptical orbit (and that something was making this happen). That was around for hundred years ago. I’m more fixated on how life was another four hundred years before that. Here was a period when the best understanding of why objects did not spontaneously float was some version of what Aristotle had argued more than a thousand years prior: He believed all objects craved their “natural place,” and that this place was the geocentric center of the universe, and that the geocentric center of the universe was Earth. In other words, Aristotle believed that a dropped rock fell to the earth because rocks belonged on earth and wanted to be there.

So let’s consider the magnitude of this shift: Aristotle—arguably the greatest philosopher who ever lives—writes the book Physics and defines his argument. His view exists unchallenged for almost two thousand years. Newton (history’s most meaningful mathematician, even to this day) eventually watches an apocryphal apple fall from an apocryphal tree and inverts the entire human understanding of why the world works as it does. Had this been explained to those people in the fourteenth century with no understanding of science—in other words, pretty much everyone else alive in the fourteenth century—Newton’s explanation would have seemed way, way crazier than what they currently believed: Instead of claiming that Earth’s existence defined reality and that there was something essentialist about why rocks acted like rocks, Newton was advocating an invisible, imperceptible force field that somehow anchored the moon in place.

We now know (“know”) that Newton’s concept was correct. Humankind had been collectively, objectively wrong for roughly twenty centuries. Which provokes three semi-related questions:

  • If mankind could believe something false was objectively true for two thousand years, why do we reflexively assume that our current understanding of gravity which we’ve embraced for a mere three hundred fifty years—will somehow exist forever?
  • Is it possible that this type of problem has simply been solved? What if Newton’s answer really is—more or less—the final answer, and the only one we will ever need? Because if that is true, it would mean we’re at the end of a process that has defined the experience of being alive. It would mean certain intellectual quests would no longer be necessary.
  • Which statement is more reasonable to make: “I believe gravity exists” or “I’m 99.9 percent certain that gravity exists”? Certainly, the second statement is safer. But if we’re going to acknowledge even the slightest possibility of being wrong about gravity, we’re pretty much giving up on the possibility of being right about anything at all.

None of this means that we should look UP when our professor flings himself out the window. Most likely he will always plummet to the pavement during our lifetimes. But it should—I hope to god it does!—invite us to wonder whether we know for certain WHY he “falls,” if that is in fact what’s happening.

Your semester-long research project will question a treasured, almost unconscious belief, of which we’re so certain we don’t even wonder whether to wonder about it. Before reading “The Island of Stone Money,” had you given a thought to why we value those thin strips of linen imprinted with inscrutable symbols? What else are we taking for granted?

Reply below, please.

Posted in davidbdale | Leave a comment

Comp Courses on a Blog

Posted in davidbdale | Leave a comment

207 Words

Brevity and Clarity

We’ll talk a lot in this class about the value of eliminating needless language. Comics know how to get and hold our attention, make a compelling argument, and satisfy us with surprising but inevitable conclusions that we SHOULD have seen coming. The best of them do so with practiced brevity.

 

Leave a comment below, please.

Posted in davidbdale | Leave a comment

First Post– starbucks

My first reaction to the yap was that they were out of their minds.

Posted in First Post, starbucks | Leave a comment

First Draft-Greeneggsandham

Kit Kats For Nerds

My first reaction to the money used by the Yaps was that they were out of their minds.

This is the second paragraph.

This is the third and final paragraph.

Posted in First Post | Leave a comment

First Post-studentwriter1212

Kit-Kats For Nerds

My first reaction to the money used by the Yap was that they were impractical.

This is the second paragraph

This is the third and final

Posted in First Post | Leave a comment

First Post-kedudnaimad

This is my first post.

This is the second paragraph.

This is my third and final paragraph.

Posted in First Post | Leave a comment

First Post- therealjohnsanchez

Posted in First Post | Leave a comment