Stone Money Rewrite-Philly321

The Value of Green

When we first hear about the island of Yap and their money, we think it’s counterintuitive that the transfer of limestone rocks (some of which are never seen) could be physically exchanged in return for tangible goods and services. On Yap, a small group of islands in the Pacific Ocean, a large, cylinder-like stone, referred to as a rai stone, was used as a source of currency to pay for trade amongst the Yap Islanders. In the article The Megalithic Money of Yap, Stella Novus said, “the rai stones were special, reserved for things like a bride’s dowry or exchanged when one tribe came to the aid of another in time of war and hardship.” Yap came to trust in their money so completely that they dispensed with the need to move huge stones from one person’s house to another. Ownership of the rock “changed hands” only metaphorically. So why does it at first seem counterintuitive, and then, when we (the “moderns” looking back at the changeover) compare it to our own system, why does it seem to be at least as reasonable as ours? Of course, money did not simply acquire power. It had to legitimize under the counterintuitive notion that paper could be equivalent to gold. Once this idea took hold, we developed a system similar to the island of Yap by transferring money electronically (that could be paid later) in exchange for palpable goods and services. Our trust in technology and money (most of which is never seen) correlates directly to the Yap’s trust amongst other islanders and limestone rocks.

Our banking system [via online banking, direct deposit and paperless bank statements] makes an economy run smooth and effectively. On Yap, a limestone (that may not even be real) was being exchanged for tangible good or services. Yap had an abstract concept of the value of money (relative to currency) long ago and we’ve seemingly advanced this idea by accommodating to an ancient method of valuing money. By reflecting and seeking out the insufficiencies in Yap culture, we were able to build a more sufficient economy that’s fast and efficient.

The intrinsic value of money stems from how people perceive its worth. Worth can be defined through the perceived importance of something palpable or impalpable. For example, the Blackfeet tribe, an indian tribe in Montana, found value in their horses after utilizing their beneficiaries and capabilities. A horse could carry large amounts of luggage and allowed Native Americans to both move and catch their prey quickly. All of these attributes were seen as assets that gave a horse value. The Native American’s ideology directly correlates to America’s perception of a small, green slip of paper. Take a sandwich for example. A sandwich could have cheese, turkey and mayonnaise, however, without bread the sandwich is incomplete and unworthy. The people are the missing bread to the sandwich.The public’s faith in the value of currency allows an economical system to run effectively. Once the public establishes a little bit of faith, the value of currency develops. Humans, in the most basic form, have the ability to determine what is and isn’t significant to them.

Money originated from a string of shared beliefs in Yap, a small group of islands in the Pacific Ocean. A large, cylinder-like stone, called a rai stone, was carved of limestone formed from calcite crystals. Rai stones were used as a source of currency to pay for trade amongst the Yap Islanders. The rai stones weighed in at nearly 4 metric tons, which made it nearly impossible for people to move these stones around. How did the Yap Islanders know who owned the rai stone? Truth is, the rai stone switched hands rapidly and had new owners more frequent than not. The people figured out who owned the stone pending a tradeoff among two of the islanders. Although it seems ridiculous, Yap paved the way for American economics based on their transactions and cultural practices.

In “The Megalithic Money of Yap,” Stella Novus notes the similarities between our present economy and the tribal culture of Yap.  Online banking is an electronic payment system that enables consumers to make transactions via the Internet. Online banking started in New York in 1981, with the help of large banks such as Citibank and Chase Manhattan. New York set a platform for the online banking system by creating an new, innovative way to make business transactions both quick and easy. People are now able to make a payment online with the click of a button. The physical storage and distribution of money has been revolutionized by technology. Management and movement of cash during the 20th century may have been very complex on the island of Yap, but at the same time there is an obvious connection. On Yap, people may not have been able to see their rai stones, but they knew they were on the island somewhere. This relates to the idea of online banking because we might not able to see our money, but we make the assumption that our money is placed safely in the bank of our choice.

In 1931, France necessitated that the United States pay them gold to help stabilize their economy. Instead of physically sending the French gold, the United States set aside gold in their national bank to satisfy the French. The gold assumed ownership, by virtue of their agreement, under France’s name similar to early Yap practices. As French gold reserves grew, the United States gold reserves plummeted, thus causing the downfall of the U.S. economy.

In 1994, during the presidency of Itamar Franco, Edmar Bacha introduced the idea of the “Unit of Real Value”. The “Unit of Real Value” was virtually make-believe money that served as a unit of currency used to value goods. How did it work? In “Brazil-The Real Plan,” Country Studies explains that the number of cruzeiros rose every couple of days while people were distracted by the idea of new currency. For example, someone may buy an apple and use one “Unite of Real Value” worth ten cruzeiros. The next day someone might by the same exact apple and use one “Unit of Real Value” worth twelve cruzeiros. The fluctuation between the underlying worth of the apple drove inflation numbers back to normal. Bacha’s plan saved Brazil’s economy by stabilizing inflation in the form of a new currency.

Ultimately, the United States does not differ much from other economic backgrounds. A slip of paper was a simple concept until someone wrote symbols on it and deemed it essential to our way of life. France gained its wealth with gold that was stationed in the United States. The evolution of money has made its way into the digital form. Brazil’s economy has made a drastic recovery based on the public’s blind faith in something fictitious. Yet, we still ask, what is money? The only rational explanation is that money has no intrinsic value. Currency is a string of beliefs that has been made up to make it easier for someone to purchase a horse without having to trade a pig or cow in return. In the end, none of these scenarios would have been accomplished without the individuals behind them. As Edmar Bacha believed, the people are the foundation for an effective economy.

Works Cited

Country Studies. “Brazil- The Real Plan.” Brazil- The Real Plan. U.S. Library of     Congress, 2012. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.

Friedman, Milton. “The Island of Stone Money.” Diss. Hoover Institution, Stanford            University, Feb. 1991. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.

Moore, E.R. “Horses and Plains Indians.”Horses and Plains Indians. Rolf E. Moore and Texarch Associates, Feb 2013. Web. 02 Nov. 2016.

Novus, Stella. “The Megalithic Money of Yap.” Ancient Origins. Ancient Origins, 04 Jan.     2013. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.

“The Invention of Money.” 423: The Invention of Stone Money. This Is American Life,      WBEZ. Chicago. 7 Jan. 2011. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.

 

9 thoughts on “Stone Money Rewrite-Philly321”

  2. Hmmmmm…..

    It seems counterintuitive that America’s idea of wealth is centered on a small, thin sheet of paper, encompassed by various symbols and numbers, that allows individuals to acquire power and assets in return. But that is exactly what is happening.

    Does it? I would think that the idea of using gold to make transactions at first seemed counterintuitive, until the idea took hold.
    After that, paper dollar bills to replace that gold must have taken some time to achieve legitimacy because of the counterintuitive notion that paper could be as valuable as gold.
    Replacing those bills with checks that only promised a recipient they could be traded for paper bills must have seemed counterintuitive too.
    Ditto the resistance to “direct deposit” and “online bill paying” and “paperless bank statements.”
    But by now, the dollar doesn’t seem counterintuitive at all. We’re so accustomed to accepting their value that refusing them would seem counterintuitive.
    What DOES seem for a time counterintuitive is the trading of massive limestone rocks (some of which nobody has ever seen) by physical transfer (or in many cases WITHOUT physical transfer) in return for tangible goods and services.
    Why is that?
    Why does it at first seem counterintuitive, and then, when we compare it to our own system, why does it seem to be at least as reasonable as ours?

    I know this isn’t enough feedback, but I’ve marked if “feedback provided” anyway. Just reply to this first bit of commentary and you can ask for feedback again.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Feedback provided.
      —DSH.

      I understand what you are trying to say. I could see how my first paragraph was contradicting. Thank you for your feedback. Here are some changes I made based on our response:

      At first, on the island of Yap, it seemed counterintuitive that the transfer of limestone rocks (some of which are never seen) could be physically exchanged in return for tangible goods and services. Fast forward centuries later, a thin, green slip of paper has taken hold in place of the limestone rock. Of course, money did not simply acquire power. It had to legitimize under the counterintuitive notion that paper could be equivalent to gold. Why does it at first seem counterintuitive, and then, when we compare it to our own system, why does it seem to be at least as reasonable as ours? Money, for centuries, has been used for the basic necessities of life: food, shelter and clothing. In America, children are being brought up in a money hungry society where they are being taught how to do rather than how to think. Our banking system via online banking, direct deposit and paperless bank statements make an economy run smooth and effectively. On Yap, a limestone (that may not even be real) was being exchanged for tangible good or services. From a holistic standpoint, America’s adaption to Yap’s belief system has at least made for a functioning economy, where as on the island of Yap they were basing their finances off a large limestone rock.

      Like

      Reply

  3. At first, on the island of Yap, it seemed counterintuitive that the transfer of limestone rocks (some of which are never seen) could be physically exchanged in return for tangible goods and services.

    To whom did it seem counterintuitive “at first”? Do you mean that when we first hear about the Yap and their money, WE think their system is counterintuitive? That’s not what you said.

    Fast forward centuries later, a thin, green slip of paper has taken hold in place of the limestone rock. Of course, money did not simply acquire power. It had to legitimize under the counterintuitive notion that paper could be equivalent to gold. Why does it at first seem counterintuitive, and then, when we compare it to our own system, why does it seem to be at least as reasonable as ours?

    There’s very little value to rhetorical questions unless you answer them, Philly. Again the question must be asked: “To whom do these changes seem counterintuitive?: the people who first were asked to embrace paper, or we “moderns” looking back at the changeover?

    Money, for centuries, has been used for the basic necessities of life: food, shelter and clothing. In America, children are being brought up in a money-hungry society where they are being taught how to do rather than how to think.

    There’s nothing wrong with moral and ethical judgments in your essay, but this one simply interrupts a factual and mechanical exploration of how money works to transfer value. What’s the point of making this observation HERE?

    Our banking system [via online banking, direct deposit and paperless bank statements] MAKES [our banking system makes] an economy run smooth and effectively. On Yap, a limestone (that may not even be real) was being exchanged for tangible good or services. From a holistic standpoint, America’s adaption to Yap’s belief system

    By “America’s adap[ta]tion to Yap’s belief system,” are you suggesting that Yap had an abstract concept of the value of money (relative to currency) long ago, and that we’ve “advanced” by accommodating ourselves to an ancient method of valuing money? If so, you haven’t made that point clearly. You should.

    has at least made for a functioning economy, where as on the island of Yap they were basing their finances [off] [BASED ON, never BASED OFF] a large limestone rock.

    There’s good work here, Philly, but I don’t want to see it in the Reply field. Incorporate it into your post by editing it there. (WordPress will save all your old drafts and even let you—and me!—compare them side by side.) When you’ve edited your Rewrite, drop me another request for feedback and I’ll review and regrade this post for you.

    No Grade Yet.

    Like

    Reply

  5. You’re working on a very strong grade here, Philly, but let’s spend a little time on your first paragraph. It assumes that your reader is familiar with the Yap and their money. (I am, but I’m not your intended reader.)

    Always take responsibility for providing the essential background information your readers require to understand your argument. For example:

    On the Micronesian island of Yap during the last century, where limestone rocks were exchanged in return for tangible goods and services, some rocks were not seen or handled, had in fact never been seen or handled by the people who used them as money. The Yap came to trust in their money so completely that they dispensed with the need to move huge stones from one person’s house to another. Ownership of the rock “changed hands” only metaphorically. That seems entirely counterintuitive until we compare it to our own monetary system. We buy milk at the local convenience store by waving a chip at a chip reader on the counter, no longer required to turn over a dollar bill or anything physical in return for the milk.

    See the difference?

    You provide no source for your example of Native American commerce. Is it personal experience?

    Coded Grade: X for now. W clearly within reach. One more revision.

    Like

    Reply

  6. feedback provided
    —DSH

    I understand how my first paragraph might have been unclear to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject. I also cited a source in my works cited for my example of Native American commerce. It was not from personal experience.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I saw the source in your Works Cited, Philly, but it doesn’t belong there unless you CITE IT in your WORK. Of course you owe Rolf Moore credit, but you need to acknowledge that fact in the paragraph that derives from his work as you did, for example, for Stella Novus in your first paragraph. Once you do that, the Scholarship grade below will be accurate and final.

      As for that first paragraph, it’s much clearer now for readers unfamiliar with the background material.
      Coded Grades in four Categories (ARMS): WWWW

      Like

      Reply
  7. Pingback: Reflective-Philly321 | Rowan Counterintuitive

Leave a comment