We are very lucky we live in a society that puts faith into something that isn’t tangible. If we lose that faith then our intangible monetary system will fall through. A dollar bill may be worth a dollar, and a five dollar bill may be worth five times that, but it’s really just paper. It has value because we believe it has value. When we look beneath the surface we’re on a tightrope above a deep pit, and if our faith in that paper starts to waver, it’s going to be a long fall.
I could easily type out: $1,000,000, but it means nothing on this page. Put those numbers in the right place however, and they can mean quite a lot. The number doesn’t change, but we believe that they mean more in our bank account. We believe that it’s a representation of all the paper money we gave to the bank. In actuality the paper is worthless too. The paper itself is worth no more than the stack sitting in my printer, but we believe that paper money has more value. Our entire financial system is based on faith. Paper is so common, we might as well be exchanging rocks.
On an island known as Yap there live a people who actually use rocks as currency. They have no precious resources and so they established that rocks have monetary value. The rocks are round and smooth. The bigger the rock, the more it’s worth. Sometimes rocks are so big they are exchanged without physically moving them, but everyone knows who owns which rock. It seems ludicrous, but it’s not really any different than our system. We exchange our worthless paper and when we want to move a larger sum of money we swap digits in a bank account. Nothing is actually physically moving, but we are considered richer or poorer after the exchange.
At one point the German government purchased the island of Yap and demanded the people build roads. The people refused. The Germans responded by commandeering the Yap’s coins. They did this by drawing on them to indicate the German’s now owned them. It may seem funny, but the Yap believed it. They thought they had lost something, and that they were poorer than before the Germans scribbled on their stones. A similar incident happened during our Great Depression. The French asked that we turn all their investments into gold. The gold never left American vaults, but it nearly caused financial ruin because we decided that the gold now belonged to France. That is what is so crucial to take away from this story. Money is something we believe in, but as of 1933 there isn’t even gold backing our paper money.
This leaves us in an awkward spot. We are already so invested in the system that it is essentially impossible to change to anything else. What we can take away is that our monetary system is incredibly fragile and, if we aren’t careful, it could lead to disaster. Our society sustains itself because we believe our rocks are valuable. Perhaps our best course of action, is to just keep the faith and hope no one comes to scribble on our paper.
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 
Hey Professor! As always, I would appreciate some feedback.
Feedback provided. —DSH
OK John.
P1. Hmmm. You eventually make clear what you mean by your first sentence, John, and it does make sense, but the true meaning is not immediately obvious. Maybe I can explain.
If I’m about to cross the tracks but stop because you tell me a train is coming, I might reflect, “Gee, I’m lucky I believed John,” but what I really should be thinking is, “Gee, I’m lucky John was informed and reliable and someone I could trust.” Does that help?
When you say, “We’re lucky to trust in something intangible,” I think you really mean, “We’re lucky our money is something we can trust (even though it’s intangible).”
YES: It’s just linen—not paper—but thankfully, it’s worth more than linen
NO: Thankfully we believe in linen instead of something truly valuable like cows.
The distinction is subtle and I guess you could disagree that I’m right or that it matters, but I share what I think is best.
And I really want you to eliminate the “you” from the last sentence.
—waiver is not waver
P2.
—them? to banks
—the banks take them?
I have absolutely no quarrel with the argument you make in this paragraph, John, and no quarrel with the familiar tone, but you can trust your reader a bit more than you do here to get the point before the third repetition. Find a briefer way to be clever and you’ll sound even cleverer.
P3. If you’re going to do a detailed telling of the Yap and their fei, which I endorse, spend one clause to say that most commonly the rocks are physically exchanged before citing the exception that they don’t have to be.
You sound as if you think you’ve proved your point when you say “its no different than our system.” I’m not clear at all what you’ve proved about the rocks, but you move instantly to the Germans without making a connection, so this is either a very abrupt and awkward transition, or you really are changing subjects completely.
When you transition again to the French gold, I’m convinced that you’re just jumping subjects because the examples are available, John. Break these anecdotes out as individual paragraphs and see if each contains a premise, evidence, and a conclusion. Add one of each if you find anything missing.
Nobody but members of our class who have read the story of the Brazilian real will have any idea what your example means. If you use it, provide just enough background so that it makes its point.
P4. “keep up on it”? How do we keep up on a currency?
Your style is glib and casual, John, and it works for you except where you get carried away and treat readers like children (P2). The style can be extremely effective when the premises are clear, the evidence is brief and perfectly chosen, and the conclusions are self-evident. You’ve left work to be done on the details, but the overall effect of your “this is how things are, weird, but we’ll be OK if we keep our heads” message is quite satisfying.
As always Professor I appreciate the detailed feedback. I’ll get to work on a rewrite and let you know when it’s done. Thank You!
John, I’ve returned from making notes on your “Invention of Money” post to see that you haven’t revised your “Money Rewrite” post yet (or at least you haven’t alerted me yet). I like what you’ve done on the earlier post, but this is the post that earns a grade. Are you planning revisions here too? They’ll do you more good. 🙂
Be sure to emphasize the outside sources in this version. It’s supposed to be more formal, less reflective, more source-based than the Invention of Money post.
Hello Professor!
My rewrite has been submitted. Feedback would be greatly appreciated and I’ll be sure to follow up on any feedback received.
Feedback provided. —DSH
This is smooth and capable, John. I don’t compare new work to earlier versions, but it grades better than your earlier grade report, so you must have made substantial improvements.
You’ve left some points on the table, though. In four of your five paragraphs, I found errors so indisputable I would have called them Fails for Grammar last semester. The parenthetical notes before each paragraph indicate how many you’ll find. Fix them and sneak into the next grade category. (I can’t give an A to something that should fail for grammar. 🙂 )
I was hoping to be able to make a final set of brief recommendations on rhetoric and flow, John, but you’ve left grammar and punctuation errors uncorrected. Most I have highlighted in red, but a couple of others I’ll talk through below.
Currency/coins.
When you say the Germans commandeered the currency, you’re using a mass noun like “the dollar,” or “the Deutschmark.” That’s different from saying the Germans commandeered their coins (which, on Yap, are called fei). What the Germans did was paint Xs on the fei. We can’t call the currency “them,” but we can say that the Germans now owned “the fei.” (Similarly, we don’t say, “The exchange rate sets the value for the dollars; we say it sets the value for the dollar against the Deutschmark.)
Yap/Yap.
The island is Yap. The people are the Yap. Judging from Milton Friedman’s essay, the plural is also Yap: Two Yap walk into a bar. So, you’re right to say “the Yap’s currency,” but as expressed before, the best grammar is: “commandeering the Yap’s coins.” Later, the right language is: “but the Yap believed it.”
more/greater
Both can be used correctly, but not always in the same way. For example, about diamonds:
—The brighter its sparkle, the greater its worth.
(both uses of “its” are possessive)
—The brighter its sparkle, the more it’s worth.
(the second has changed to “the more it is worth.”)
Do you see how your version goes wrong?
This will be our last feedback session for this essay, John. I encourage you to fix the red grammar. I hope these new lessons are helpful.
Thank you Professor, I will update the essay.
Posted that early. I meant to say that I updated the essay.
It’s been a long, enjoyable ride, John. I hope you’ve learned lasting lessons from making this brief essay more intelligible, more persuasive and clear, and now finally error-free. 🙂
I certainly did Professor! Any other feedback you have to give on my work would be much appreciated!