Are Currency and Money the Same thing

[deuxmill]

Wheal they are also nouns . Currency is also a noun . Fuck me even human is a noun. and even language is a noun and even RETARD is a noun.

What's that suppose to mean?

A form of wealth that ain't money is for example a photo of your dog that no one would want it in exchange for something he owns. IT would be wealth to you because it has value to you , but it ain't money because you can't exchange it. and it ain't currency either.

I have to make a correction to one of my statements above thought :

No you don't have currency , cash , but still you could rent it , or you could exchange it ... or you could grow something on it , or you could build something on it. Money ain't imaginary. It's a term for value which can be exchanged . If something has value to you it is money wealth.

There .

So not all wealth is money ... only that which can be exchanged .

Your view has some pretty big problems still, even after you've clarified it so as not to include all nouns.

The first problem is that you are ignoring several roles of money in favor of just one role.  Go back up to the top and read the first few posts.

The second problem is that you are using meaningless criteria for excluding some nouns from the category of money.  Say that someone really likes the picture of your dog.  Does the picture of the dog then become money?  Was it money before that person knew the picture existed?  Does it remain money once that person has the picture, assuming that there isn't a second person that would also be willing to exchange for it?  I could go on, but it doesn't appear that there is any way to make a consistent decision about the money-ness of some object based on your definition, nor on reasonable extensions of that definition.

No it was not money before. It is money when you can exchange it , you can only then exchange it if that someone really likes the picture of your dog. IT IS MONEY IF YOU CAN EXCHANGE IT . By assuming that there isn't a THIRD person that would also be willing to exchange for it then I have to assume it ain't money afterwards.

So by you only post in which you reveal you point of view : I assume your view of the noun DOLLAR which defines a currency is that it is the realization of money. WHICH IS COW DUNG. A DOLLAR IS JUST AS FICTIONAL AS A SIN OR A BLESSING FROM GOD. the dollar bills and the number in the bank accounts represent that fictional item like wine represents in certain conditions the blood of CHRIST.

[1713412650]

1713412650

[kjj]

No it was not money before. It is money when you can exchange it , you can only then exchange it if that someone really likes the picture of your dog. IT IS MONEY IF YOU CAN EXCHANGE IT . By assuming that there isn't a THIRD person that would also be willing to exchange for it then I have to assume it ain't money afterwards.

So, money is anything that could be exchanged, but only in those moments when it could be exchanged.  If it actually is exchanged, it could very well cease to be money at that instant.  And, of course, we never really know what could be exchanged unless we actually attempt the exchange.  Or, is something money because someone says they are willing to exchange for it, even if they really aren't willing?

In this strange world of quantum moneydynamics, what plays the other roles that we assign to money?  To give two examples of non-medium roles, how is (abstract) value stored, and what is the unit of account?

So by you only post in which you reveal you point of view : I assume your view of the noun DOLLAR which defines a currency is that it is the realization of money. WHICH IS COW DUNG. A DOLLAR IS JUST AS FICTIONAL AS A SIN OR A BLESSING FROM GOD. the dollar bills and the number in the bank accounts represent that fictional item like wine represents in certain conditions the blood of CHRIST.

You should figure out who pressed your crazy button and ask them to turn it off.

Just in case you aren't merely trying to embarrass yourself, I'll point out that I've already addressed your objection in the very post that you claim to have just read, post #2 of this thread.

[btc_artist]

currency = medium of exchange
money = medium of exchange, unit of account, store of value

[kiyote]

So having a patch of land you don't have money ?

Correct. You have wealth, not money.

I think you don't understand the difference between money and wealth. We should all try to remind ourselves of that difference from time to time.

Please explain to me the difference. So that i can remind to my self of that from time to time.

All currencies together are currency . They are money only in certain conditions which i explained above. Money is wealth and wealth is money . even if we didn't invent currency money would still exist because we can exchange our wealth through barter.
Money = wealth in exchange.
Currency = fictional item invented for the sole purpose of being exchanged.

Let me ask you this: If for example a town would revert to barter would it have any money? Could it use it's wealth to trade with other towns? Or would they absolutely need currency? Sure they can trade ... they give oil for food for example and that wealth is money at that very moment and it ain't currency because if no one want's their oil for example they could just use it themselves to power some tractors.

This is my view on things.

What is money in your view ? All currencies ever invented? If that is the case then you are right. If we refer to money as a distinct term for all currencies and only currencies , that don't represent wealth and can only be exchanged for wealth then you are right.

 

In this case, land is a resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource), meaning it acts as a source from which some benefit is derived, in this case you live there, you can grow crops on it, etc.  As such, you are right, the land does have a value associated with the derived benefits.

In the barter system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter_system), you would exchange use of the land directly with other resources.  You could rent out a corner of it for a baker to set up shop on, and in turn he gives you a hundred loaves of break a week.

But a hundred loaves of bread is a lot of bread, much more than you can eat.  You could try to find someone else who needs them before they spoil, such as the blacksmith, where you can give him 5 loaves of bread for a new shovel.  But if he, lets say, already made a set of knives for a baker for 20 loaves, he doesn't have any need for bread and the loaves spoil, so you would need to find someone else to trade with.

But this is a lot of work, so you set up a Medium of Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange).  In this case, every week the baker gives you a hundred coupons each worth a loaf of bread.  Whenever you want a loaf of bread, you would give him a coupon.  You could then buy your shovel from the blacksmith for five coupons, and then the blacksmith can exchange it whenever he needs bread, or he can go to the local tailor and trade in a bread coupon to fix his shirt that he burnt while working on the forge.

After a while, the king notices your new private bread currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency), and thinks it's a nifty idea and the whole kingdom should use them.  So he commands his royal scribes to write bread coupons and his royal bakers to accept them for bread, and then commands all the people in the land to accept them as an official state-mandated currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency). 

And that's the story of how a resource became a currency. 

[deuxmill]

So having a patch of land you don't have money ?

Correct. You have wealth, not money.

I think you don't understand the difference between money and wealth. We should all try to remind ourselves of that difference from time to time.

Please explain to me the difference. So that i can remind to my self of that from time to time.

All currencies together are currency . They are money only in certain conditions which i explained above. Money is wealth and wealth is money . even if we didn't invent currency money would still exist because we can exchange our wealth through barter.
Money = wealth in exchange.
Currency = fictional item invented for the sole purpose of being exchanged.

Let me ask you this: If for example a town would revert to barter would it have any money? Could it use it's wealth to trade with other towns? Or would they absolutely need currency? Sure they can trade ... they give oil for food for example and that wealth is money at that very moment and it ain't currency because if no one want's their oil for example they could just use it themselves to power some tractors.

This is my view on things.

What is money in your view ? All currencies ever invented? If that is the case then you are right. If we refer to money as a distinct term for all currencies and only currencies , that don't represent wealth and can only be exchanged for wealth then you are right.

 

In this case, land is a resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource), meaning it acts as a source from which some benefit is derived, in this case you live there, you can grow crops on it, etc.  As such, you are right, the land does have a value associated with the derived benefits.

In the barter system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter_system), you would exchange use of the land directly with other resources.  You could rent out a corner of it for a baker to set up shop on, and in turn he gives you a hundred loaves of break a week.

But a hundred loaves of bread is a lot of bread, much more than you can eat.  You could try to find someone else who needs them before they spoil, such as the blacksmith, where you can give him 5 loaves of bread for a new shovel.  But if he, lets say, already made a set of knives for a baker for 20 loaves, he doesn't have any need for bread and the loaves spoil, so you would need to find someone else to trade with.

But this is a lot of work, so you set up a Medium of Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange).  In this case, every week the baker gives you a hundred coupons each worth a loaf of bread.  Whenever you want a loaf of bread, you would give him a coupon.  You could then buy your shovel from the blacksmith for five coupons, and then the blacksmith can exchange it whenever he needs bread, or he can go to the local tailor and trade in a bread coupon to fix his shirt that he burnt while working on the forge.

After a while, the king notices your new private bread currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency), and thinks it's a nifty idea and the whole kingdom should use them.  So he commands his royal scribes to write bread coupons and his royal bakers to accept them for bread, and then commands all the people in the land to accept them as an official state-mandated currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency). 

And that's the story of how a resource became a currency. 

You are absolutely right . The only difference that i could spot , and you can call me whatever you like , I don't really care , is : I consider that when they exchanged that set of knifes for 20 loaves they used those resources as money , because they EXCHANGED resources. The notes are money for as long as the baker has bread. If he doesn't you and all the others can take the notes and shove them up your ass/ down your mouth but you won't get much out of them. Therefore the notes are currency.

It's just a matter of perspective after all.

from thefreedictionary.com :

mon·ey  (mn)
n. pl. mon·eys or mon·ies
1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.
2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.
3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.

[cbeast]

Lawyers, guns, and money are the rock-scissors-paper game of the real world. The value of what you have depends on the circumstances. To paraphrase Warren Zevon, when the shit hits the fan, it helps to have all three.

[kiyote]

So having a patch of land you don't have money ?

Correct. You have wealth, not money.

I think you don't understand the difference between money and wealth. We should all try to remind ourselves of that difference from time to time.

Please explain to me the difference. So that i can remind to my self of that from time to time.

All currencies together are currency . They are money only in certain conditions which i explained above. Money is wealth and wealth is money . even if we didn't invent currency money would still exist because we can exchange our wealth through barter.
Money = wealth in exchange.
Currency = fictional item invented for the sole purpose of being exchanged.

Let me ask you this: If for example a town would revert to barter would it have any money? Could it use it's wealth to trade with other towns? Or would they absolutely need currency? Sure they can trade ... they give oil for food for example and that wealth is money at that very moment and it ain't currency because if no one want's their oil for example they could just use it themselves to power some tractors.

This is my view on things.

What is money in your view ? All currencies ever invented? If that is the case then you are right. If we refer to money as a distinct term for all currencies and only currencies , that don't represent wealth and can only be exchanged for wealth then you are right.

 

In this case, land is a resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource), meaning it acts as a source from which some benefit is derived, in this case you live there, you can grow crops on it, etc.  As such, you are right, the land does have a value associated with the derived benefits.

In the barter system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter_system), you would exchange use of the land directly with other resources.  You could rent out a corner of it for a baker to set up shop on, and in turn he gives you a hundred loaves of break a week.

But a hundred loaves of bread is a lot of bread, much more than you can eat.  You could try to find someone else who needs them before they spoil, such as the blacksmith, where you can give him 5 loaves of bread for a new shovel.  But if he, lets say, already made a set of knives for a baker for 20 loaves, he doesn't have any need for bread and the loaves spoil, so you would need to find someone else to trade with.

But this is a lot of work, so you set up a Medium of Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange).  In this case, every week the baker gives you a hundred coupons each worth a loaf of bread.  Whenever you want a loaf of bread, you would give him a coupon.  You could then buy your shovel from the blacksmith for five coupons, and then the blacksmith can exchange it whenever he needs bread, or he can go to the local tailor and trade in a bread coupon to fix his shirt that he burnt while working on the forge.

After a while, the king notices your new private bread currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency), and thinks it's a nifty idea and the whole kingdom should use them.  So he commands his royal scribes to write bread coupons and his royal bakers to accept them for bread, and then commands all the people in the land to accept them as an official state-mandated currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency). 

And that's the story of how a resource became a currency. 

You are absolutely right . The only difference that i could spot , and you can call me whatever you like , I don't really care , is : I consider that when they exchanged that set of knifes for 20 loaves they used those resources as money , because they EXCHANGED resources. The notes are money for as long as the baker has bread. If he doesn't you and all the others can take the notes and shove them up your ass/ down your mouth but you won't get much out of them. Therefore the notes are currency.

It's just a matter of perspective after all.

from thefreedictionary.com :

mon·ey  (mn)
n. pl. mon·eys or mon·ies
1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.
2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.
3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.

You're right.  Technically it would be considered as a Commodity Money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money), where the value of exchange is intrinsic to the item itself.  Where commodity money fails is that the value is very subjective dependent upon my immediate needs:  if I don't need any more bread, and don't know anyone else who I can trade it with, it carries a low value for me, but to my neighbor, who's starving, it can carry a much higher value.

[johnyj]

I'm thinking about a simplified case:

On an island with only 2 people (A and B) and a bank, at the beginning of the day, bank loan out 1 million dollar (the island dollar) to A and 1 million to B, with 0 interest

A then capture a fish and sell to B at price of 1 million, B pick up a basket of fruits and sell to A at price of 1 million. After this, they both spent 1 million and earned 1 million, at the end of the day, they return the money to Bank, thus completing the credit loop

So, money is the driven power of economy activities, same as BTC is the driven power of miner's activities, under this driven power, there will be economy activities.

What if second day bank only will loan 100 dollar to A and 100 dollar to B? A and B will refuse to do anything because they think the dollar is not worth their effort. Actually their economy activities in this case are totally independent of how much bank loan they have, they could still complete the activities with 100 dollar loan, but now they have some HISTORY to compare and FEEL unfair

So, the most important use of currency is the benchmark of value

[cbeast]

I'm thinking about a simplified case:

On an island with only 2 people (A and B) and a bank, at the beginning of the day, bank loan out 1 million dollar (the island dollar) to A and 1 million to B, with 0 interest

A then capture a fish and sell to B at price of 1 million, B pick up a basket of fruits and sell to A at price of 1 million. After this, they both spent 1 million and earned 1 million, at the end of the day, they return the money to Bank, thus completing the credit loop

So, money is the driven power of economy activities, same as BTC is the driven power of miner's activities, under this driven power, there will be economy activities.

What if second day bank only will loan 100 dollar to A and 100 dollar to B? A and B will refuse to do anything because they think the dollar is not worth their effort. Actually their economy activities in this case are totally independent of how much bank loan they have, they could still complete the activities with 100 dollar loan, but now they have some HISTORY to compare and FEEL unfair

So, the most important use of currency is the benchmark of value

If there is nobody in the bank, why don't they just go take that 2 million out? I'm just pointing out that if this is a closed system, then there is no need for money.

[johnyj]

If there is nobody in the bank, why don't they just go take that 2 million out? I'm just pointing out that if this is a closed system, then there is no need for money.

The bank is operated by heavily armed robots 

And, if they are so easy to get that 2 million, it will worth nothing to them, and there will be no economy activities. You can regard the planet earth as a closed system with billions pair of A,B and banks, same principle still holds