User talk:DavidMichaelMyers

I am a long-time student of money. I am brand new to Wikipedia, but highly desirous of making a useful, valid contribution.

I find this article to have several good points and several very bad points. I notice that a number of people have picked up on them, however I am very cautious and reluctant to go in and edit like a bull in a china shop.

I will start off by saying here that the lead-in definition of "money" is deficient, in my opinion.

I will try to work up what I consider to be an adequate and complete definition.

First off, the word "money" should not be thrown around loosely as it seems to be in this article.

I will have to read thoroughly and edit the history section in order to correct some terribly bad assumptions before I can completely explain this; however, suffice it to say:

THERE IS "real money" and there are "money substitutes."

Gold, silver, platinium (and any other highly durable, relatively rare commodity metal of high, provable purity) are presently the only practical forms of REAL money in this world. These are the commodities that are UNIVERSALLY accepted as media of exchange, stores of value, etc.

All the other things that are commonly called money (due to laziness) such as Federal Reserve Notes, US coinage, other nations' coinage and currency, checks, electronic bookkeeping entries, credit cards, debit cards, etc. are just that: forms of currency, which by definition are money substitutes.

This is a MOST IMPORTANT POINT! In order to have a good understanding of money and all the problems and issues surrounding it one must thoroughly grasp and really understand this.

If you sit down and think hard about money you can come only to the conclusion that you need to have something "physical" to use as a reference or standard. And the reason is derived from the very definition of money: money is a "commodity" that is widely accepted as a "medium of exchange" and as a long-term "store of value."

Little pieces of paper with pretty markings on them are not money, they are "money substitutes," and to be worth something, the bearer must be able to exchange his "substitutes" for real money anytime he wants to. Otherwise, the guys who print or write the pretty little pieces of paper can swindle the gullible ones.

Also, pretty little copper slugs shaped into the form of coins with a shiny coating are not money. If anyone believes that, then they should check the going rate for copper at their local recycling center. (I use Ernie's Junkyard up on USRoute 11, north of Martinsburg.) These coins are also "money substitutes." Gullible people don't know or understand the difference.

Ideally, a little old lady in Ottumwa could put away in safekeeping a small gold piece that would buy two loaves of good bread and come back ten, twenty, a hundred, or even five hundred years later and buy the same amount of bread. (Or even a little more or a little better bread as production efficiencies and competition increase) with the same small gold piece.

Only with a common, universal, "unmanipulatable" standard of reference, can mankind devise a truly rational monetary system.

Fiat money systems are mirages. Those who disdain commodity metals do not seem to understand or admit this.

But who cares? "In the long run we are all dead!"