A good read is Glyn Davies "A history Of Money." -- Posted by exindigo 1 day, 15 hours ago.
"Hi, I suggest you read "Money Mischief" by Milton Friedman." -- Posted by Danno 1 day, 19 hours ago

Davies, I know. The Friedman book is at both my city and university libraries, so I will check it out later. I am always interested in learning more.

But I know a few things about this and most economists do not. (One who does is George Selgin who wrote about the Birmingham Buttonmakers and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage.) We do not have college curricula in numismatics. Many of us major in history, art history, or languages. Largely we are autodidacts. I do hold three certifications from the American Numismatic Association: Basic Numismatics, Grading U.S. Coins Today, and Detecting Altered and Counterfeit U.S. Coinage.

My first literary award from the ANA was for an article on the origins of coinage. The nomination came from Elvira Clain-Stefanelli of the Smithsonian; and the article corrected the Encyclopedia Britannica. (I also had to win the support of Robert Hoge of the ANA Museum who convinced the editorial board that most of the standard references on their shelves were wrong: merchants did not invent coins.) My second literary award from the ANA was for a biography of Sir Isaac Newton's tenure as warden and master of the British Royal Mint. Other awards from other groups came for other works.

The ANA also published articles from me on Buffalo Nickels, Peace Dollars, Cameo Proofs, and Proof Double Eagles. For seven years, I wrote the monthly "Internet Connections" column for The Numismatist. Some of my works are given as citations in Wikipedia articles. One was cited by Nobel laureate Robert Mundell.

When it comes to money, I know what I am talking about.

Most recently, I read "Debt: the First 5000 Years" by David Graeber. Although Prof. Graeber is an anthropologist, he is also a left-anarchist who is afraid of debt and money. That being as it may, his work is supported by current research. He supplies his sources. The take-away facts are: (1) Trade did not begin as calculated profit-making (2) Debt did not begin with money. (3) Money did not grow out of barter. (4) Gold and silver did not evolve from commodity money.

And just to say, this fear of debt and money is not isolated to Marxists.The conservative and libertarian quest for 100% gold-backed banking and a gold-backed federal money supply are reflections of the same fears.

In understanding the origins of monetary media, Menger and Mises did not improve on Marx. Even Hayek offered no empirical evidence for his "Denationalisation of Money." He only cited Rothbard's "What has Government Done to Our Money?" which only cited one academic paper from 1916, which itself was flawed by citing as "circulating" coins that we know were rarely seen: any active American coin collector could have provided a wealth of accurate empirical data.

Numismatics: the Standard of Proof in Economics
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...
Murray Rothbard: Fraud or Faker
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...

Though I thank Mike Marotta for the link to Introductions, when I reached that page I couldn't discover how to create an introduction of my own. (This may mean I'm too stupid for the Gulch. If so, expel me — if not, consider telling me what I'm missing that will allow me to do as Mike requests.)

ledger or IOU or currency. general vs personal. bitcoin proves that

thanks for the information. glad to have you in the Gulch

I understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics just fine. You did not answer the questions. 1) The Earth is not a closed system. 2) Entropy does not apply to the Universe.

I have a BSEE and a MS in Physics and JD. I have worked in the high tech world my whole adult life. Respond to the actual statements, don't avoid the issues by changing the subject.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones

A glass with ice at 40 F will over time equalize its temperature with the room; the room cools just a bit and the water warms a lot. The result is less concentrated energy hence more entropy. I take it you did not study advanced physics and mathematics such and quantum and non-linear differential equations. Entropy is part of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_...... "The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics."

As a corollary, there is no such thing as unlimited Wealth as I defined my terms. Having so would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I leave it to you to disprove this law if you can.

doesn't surprise me. textbooks on economics and the study of economics doesn't seem to concern itself with the creation of wealth. It's not that it doesn't exist. A Smith gave three ways to create wealth at a national level, the economic freedom indices sort of talk about economic growth. Mostly, economic texts concern themselves with banking, money and trade. This is a research area Objectivists should be jumping all over...

Mike every invention is a combination of known elements (rearranged). You cannot violate the conservation of matter and energy. A new invention is a new combination, but built on old things (existing).

Just because energy and matter are conserved does not mean that people have not created wealth. If I convert carbon chains into heat (fire) I am wealthier; if I convert sunlight and carbon into wheat, corn, cows, I am wealthier; if I convert iron oxide and coal into steel and form it into engines, cars, railroads, I am wealthier. Wealth is about rearranging matter and energy to sustain human life.

The Entropy argument, commonly used by environmentalists, is based on a misunderstanding of entropy. The Earth is not a closed system, so entropy does not apply to Earth. Most likely the Universe is not a closed system either, it is probably infinite and entropy would not apply.

whoa, Bambi. finally we agree on something....

I would like to make clear my definitions: Money is proxy for store of value and accepted as tendering for economic transaction. Productive Work provides the underpinning for the use of Money. Currency is a fabrication of central banking and was originally backed by Money such as Gold. It is the Currency that is abused not Money. Money cannot be abused, only exchanged. A unit of Money becomes worth more when Productivity increases Wealth. The value of a Currency is at the whim of the Central Bank.

Please see my previous post today "What is Money?"

Hi, I suggest you read "Money Mischief" by Milton Friedman (do not flame me) if you have not. See http://www.amazon.com/Money-Mischief-Epi...

I just checked HUMAN ACTION by von Mises: nothing about creating wealth.

I don't know where to find Introductions — that page isn't displaying on my device, for some reason. Please send my e-mail account a link: handwritingrepair@gmail.com
Meanwhile — thanks for welcoming my info. Decades ago, at college where I'd joined an Objectivist group (or something whose leaders said it was an Objectivist group), I was expelled for (among other things) bringing in documentation of this very point (that the idiom "make money" originated before, and outside, the USA).

Thanks, Kate! I always appreciated your etymologies, even as we disagreed. You have a broad range of interests and expertise that will be appreciated by many of the regulars here. (Stop by the Introductions and let others know that you are in the Gulch.)

Although I liked your philosophy (Thumbs Up), I have to hold off on your history. "We know that early humans without central government spontaneously created money from various objects." We know no such thing. It was assumed on idealist/rationalist suggestion that looking at the modern world, the so-called "primitive" societies developed money along such-and-such lines. However, modern research failed to support any of that. In fact, it seems that barter is what money economies DEVOLVE to when cash is unavailable. It seems certain now that the first money qua money was invented in the first cities. One or two ice ages previously, gifts were exchanged, but not as calculated trade for profit. Primitive people do not have money, and likely never did. Money qua money was invented after writing was invented. The first money depended on literacy for contracts: cuneiform promises in clay 2000 years before the first coin.

sorry-I was off of the "make money" thing early in the post. I am all about the "create wealth," which is how I interpreted the money speech.

A phrase literally equivalent to "make money" ("faire d'argent") is common in medical French documents, with the same meaning as "make money" in English.
I say "in English" (rather than " in American English") with intent: as the Oxford English Dictionary documents that the phrase was used in England (again, with the same meaning) at a period before the colonization of America. "To make money,," then, was not unique to America,mand was not created by Americans. (Like many an old phrase or usage, it went out of currency where it had been coined, only to survive elsewhere.)

Ah the radio. Truly disruptive. Side note - my dad is a big collector and historian of early Radios. I grew up crisscrossing tri-state region to attend auctions where he could purchase breadboards to consoles. Our house was decorated with vacuum tubes and horn speakers

Interesting. A number of concerns issued "scrip" well into the 20th century. By no means mining companies. Land O' Lakes Co-op printed its own money during the Great Depression, effectively creating private local economies in many small towns. A co-op is, of course, an entirely voluntary association.

"TO MAKE MONEY"--almost a lost concept in modern-day America. In order to maintain a capitalist economic, it is necessary to produce something of tangible value or to provide a skilled service (hardly intangible but somewhat different).

A "service economy" consisting of semi-skilled people working at low-paid jobs and others skimming wealth by making an infinite series of electronic financial transactions, cannot remain capitalist for long. Any economy that wishes to maintain itself in a global economy must, first and foremost, produce something that others want to buy.

An old joke defines capitalism as: "you have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull". Better still, you keep both (your "capital") sell some milk (your product) and rent the neighbor's bull (a necessary service).