The idea of using large cylindrical stones as monetary value at first seems silly, but in the story of “The Island of Stone Money,” a paper written by Milton Friedman, it makes sense. The people of the Island of Yap travel far to tirelessly carve away at rocks to show their wealth. The size and craftsmanship of the stone determines its value. In a way, this form of currency is only able to be used in an honest society, therefor it would never work in the United States. The idea of an object that is worth more based upon the amount of effort the owner puts into making it seems like it is almost a lost art. In our world of corruption and greed, the same system would fail miserably.
In the article ” The Pros and Cons of ditching cash for Electronic Currency,” by Michelle Singaletary, the options of using actual physical money or digital dollars are weighed. With our growing technology, the thought of an actual personal exchange of money to buy things is disappearing. With this, the thought of monetary security seems to increase, but without the actual use of money, what would our world look like? According to Kate Rogers of FOXBusiness in her article “One New Identity Theft Victim every 3 Seconds in 2012,” there were a total of 12.6 million identity thefts equaling over 21 billion dollars stolen in 2012. If our country had grown in a positive and honest way, like the island of Yap, then we might not have grown so fast, but we sure would be economically stable within our own country.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Could you give this a look?
Feedback provided, —DSH
Glad to, Alex.
Thank you for your contributions in class today. You’re always very sharp and generous; I appreciate it.
OK, Alex, here goes. As you have probably read in other Reply boxes, I make my notes as I read your essay, not after, so you get the benefit of reading how one very engaged reader reacts to your argument as it unfolds. It seems to work.
P1. Be careful with your terms, Alex. (You’ll see a fuller warning of this type in the instructions for the rewrite.) The Yap didn’t use stones “as monetary value”; they used stones as money. The little distinctions are critical in an essay about the meanings of terms.
They “carve away at rocks to show their wealth”? Ummm . . . . Knowing the story, I sort of get it, but imagine you don’t know the paper. What will this mean to you? “Tirelessly”? Maybe the guy who sent the workers doesn’t break a sweat, but I’ll bet the quarry workers, carvers, shapers, and polishers are exhausted . . . the stones aren’t theirs!
Am I picky? Oh yes. Do these little things you say really matter so much? They should. If they don’t, replace them with phrases that do.
“The size and craftsmanship of the stone determine its value” is an admirable sentence, every bit as elegant as the tirelessly carve sentence is meant to be, but better for its accuracy.
You’re a good writer, Alex, so I’ll demand quality and expect improvement. For example: “In a way, this form of currency is only able to be used in an honest society, therefor[e] it would never work in the United States.”
—Is there a way in which the stones could function in a dishonest society, and another way in which they could not? Could you describe those ways? My point is: strike the “in a way” and its companions “in a sense” and “in certain circumstances” unless you plan to identify and distinguish the particulars of the way, sense, or circumstances.
—Are we numbering the abilities of the currency? It is able to be used in an honest society but it lacks other abilities? My point is: you mean the currency works only in an honest society (you say so in the next clause).
—As I see it: “Massive stones as currency, especially stones that required countless man-hours of labor to achieve their value, could only work in a society more honest than ours.”
I’d like to understand your argument here, Alex, because I trust you to have a good one to defend, but I’m missing some logic elements.
—labor and craftsmanship determine the value
—the willingness to invest that labor and skill is a lost art
—our culture is corrupt and greedy
—therefore the stone currency is not effective for us
What’s the connection between honesty, labor, craftsmanship, corruption, and greed? Does it involve theft of the stones? Are you suggesting some sort of counterfeiting? Or do you merely mean we’re not willing to work hard with our hands for money? If so, you want to call us lazy, not corrupt and greedy. Right? Clarify, please.
P2. I could use this first sentence as an example in “Try to Say Something,” Alex. It contains much terminology and comes close to making a claim, but in the end it doesn’t say anything. What if, in the article, “Title,” Michelle Singletary concluded that the exchange of physical money was being replaced by digital exchanges? The setup of the first sentence is combined with the payoff of the second, and you’re free to spend the saved words on another idea.
Want to redeem that “growing technology” detail that I cut? Use it later to displace “the thought of an actual personal exchange of money,” or “the actual use of money,” which start to get repetitive.
It’s not the thought of an exchange that’s disappearing; it’s the exchange. It’s not the thought of monetary security that’s increasing; it’s the security. Right?
I’m very glad to see you return to the honesty and thievery themes here, Alex. I want you to redeem the hints you dropped at the end of P1. You don’t say so exactly, but identity theft only occurs in a digital world, right? In a world of currency, only physical theft is possible? But our increasingly virtual wealth is easy to hack?
The hints are strong, but the logic is still not solid. Virtual wealth makes identity theft possible, but it doesn’t cause it, does it? That’s what’s nagging me. You seem to be blaming abstract money for the theft of money, as if nobody would steal if money were still made of paper. I see there’s more to your idea than that, but exactly what is not clear.
Despite my voluminous notes, this is strong work, Alex, altogether worthy as a first draft and more than deserving of a thorough and radical overhaul! 🙂 I look forward to the rewrite.