Talk:Currency

Crowns

If krona/krone are to be merged (which I support), then the Czech koruna and Estonian kroon should also join the family. Jpatokal 13:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

disagree as this edit looses information, ie what currency applies to which country (and v.v.). Yes they are a 'family' of Crowns but the individual names and relevance (ie country of origin) must be retained across that edit - the primary point of having a reference work like WP imho! List them in a tree, but don't 'merge'. --Vamp:Willow 15:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not proposing that country names be removed, I'm proposing that we move all the crowns under the same heading, and then list the exact name and country under the heading. Jpatokal 03:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Independence vs. Private Corporation

To preempt a revert war, I think we should settle whether the Fed is an independent agency or a private corporation. The case law cited refers to Tort liablity rather than monetary independence. The relevant staute stating that Congress can dissolve Fed Reserve is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00000341----000-.html. The text: "To have succession after February 25, 1927, until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law."

In an article on currency, the relevant axis on analysis is monetary policy. The Fed's power in this area is clearly given by Congress, and what Congress gives, it can take away. The Fed's status as a private corporation in regards to Tort law is much less relevant in a currency article.

Also, we don't want to bog down on the US Fed's status in the intro paragraphs that should give general overview to all users from all countries. No US-only focus. Feco 03:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further, refer to Federal_Reserve#Who_owns_the_Federal_Reserve on this. Discussion about the Fed's status belongs on the Fed' wiki page to begin with.

I'll also refrain that a court ruling about tort liablity of Federal government for the Federal Reserve's actions DOES NOT apply to monetary policy. Feco 03:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Governments don't rule central banks, central banks rule governments. If you want to just give the "public relations" perspective on things then remove my editings and replace them with a link to the FED's website. But if you want to provide something which accurately depicts the reality of currency, what it is and how it functions in society and how it is manipulated in ways not beneficial to citizenry of soverign nations, then at the very least you it should just MENTION that ultimate *OWNERSHIP* of central bank *SHARES* lie with *PRIVATE* entities (namely the banking families of Europe who have been around for quite some time now).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve

Yes, the criticism article is linked to from the Fed wiki article. It is NOT linked to from the Currency article, because there is no place for it here. The generic overview of monetary authority and how it relates to currency is sufficient. People looking for more in-depth research will go to the Fed article.

FYI- in the US, shares of Fed Reserve branches are held by member banks. This is by law. The shares are non-tradable, carry no voting authorty, and pay a paltry dividend (which is partial compensation for the fact that Fed pays no interest on member banks' deposits). The "owners" of CBanks have no authority over the exercise of monetary policy, since the authority to exercise policy is explicitly granted to monetary authorites by legislative bodies. That authority can easily be revoked if the Bank oversteps its bounds (say, by promoting the interest of its shadowy 'owners').

Per your post above, I'm going to "just give the PR perspective" and revert your edits. Feco 18:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

use of Pound

There is a line "even the pound is used in a dozen countries, all with wildly varying values" with a "dubious" tag. This is true, but misleading. There are 10 or 12 countries which historically have been British colonies or Crown dependencies which have currencies denominated in pounds, all of which are legally tied to the pound sterling (and thus have the same value). There are also 5 countries (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and South Sudan) which denominate their currencies in pounds, but have no tie to the pound sterling (the history behind this is that, in the 19th century when Britain had effective control of Egypt, the Egyptian government introduced a new currency tied to the pound sterling, and called it the pound. When the Ottoman empire collapsed, Egyptian pounds became the defacto currency in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Sudan; each eventually introduced it's own currency but kept the name "pound". All of these currencies lost their tie to the pound sterling many years ago, and now, as the article suggests, "vary wildly"). I see no easy way to summarize that into one line to fit the article, and suggest the line in question be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.123.64 ([[User talk: 69.180.123.64#top|talk]]) 16:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Physical currency" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Physical currency has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § Physical currency until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Money

• The below category should be added.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Money

Kenixkil (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article isn't protected, so you can proceed by adding the category on your own. Vgbyp (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)