My concept of money is completely changed after learning of the Yap. The article made me realize that people rarely see all of their money. The way the Yap ran their monetary system is almost identical to how countries all over the world run theirs even though the Yap was based on large circular stones with a hole in the middle instead of paper currency. These stones were called Fei. The systems are the same as in people do not actually have to see their money to know that it belongs to them but according to Milton Friedman one of the wealthiest Yap families said they were rich because they mined an enormous Fei but unfortunately had to drop it in the ocean to save their lives. No one else ever saw the Fei but still it was not questioned that the family could have been lying. [This would be the equivalent to someone today saying they are rich but having no proof or record to show for it which would never happen.] The Yap family could have easily made the story up to gain wealth even though there was no proof of the Fei that they supposedly lost at sea which proved their system was flawed even though it worked well most of the time. Our monetary system is also flawed but at a much larger scale. A perfect example is how Bernie Madoff committed fraud which is similar to what the Yap family could have done. Although we as a society have come a long way from paying people in stones, we have not ventured too far from the concept.
Sources:
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 I get feedback please?
Feedback provided. —DSH
Hey, Erik!
Imagine you start reading this article not knowing about our class, the article “The Invention of Money,” or the Yap. What would you make of the first two sentences?
The third begins the job of providing the reader with the background necessary to understand your comments, but the first two would be as mysterious as a conversation we walk in on in the middle. Re-think how to open for a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter.
The next truly mysterious sentence would be “The systems are the same as in people do not actually have to see . . . save their lives.” How in the world would a reader understand this without having been a student in this class? Do you see the problem? You’re addressing a much too narrow audience. Nobody will think that “not having to see their money to know they have it” is a common element in all currencies unless they have first studied the situation as you have.
People every day act rich who are not, Erik, don’t they? They accumulate enormous debt based on a good job or their temporary possession of a big house and then surround themselves with stuff they’ve bought on credit. I’m just reacting like a reader would to your claim that in our world nobody could get away with claiming to be rich without “records.”
The more I read this paragraph, the more I think you should retell the story of the “lost fei” for an audience that doesn’t know it. The example seems to be important to you and would focus your attention narrowly. Start by patiently explaining to your readers that on Yap, the money was huge stone disks. Move to the situation when the disks don’t have to move from one man’s house to another’s to indicate change of possession. Then finish with: in fact, nobody ever has to see the big stone at the bottom of the ocean for it to convey wealth. Once that paradox is clearly in your readers’ minds, you can use the rest of your essay to clearly identify the similarities between the Yap economy and our own.
Please try this, Erik. If the technique works for you, it will improve your writing forever. As it is, you try to pursue too many goals simultaneously and create confusion.
I can very much see the McMansion and Bernie Madoff examples paying off for you once you have that deep wet stone firmly in your readers’ minds. OK?
—Watch