Talk:Unit of account

Changed user name but not for the purpose of being a sock puppet.

I have changed my username from my real name Nicolaas J Smith to Herbou which is not for the purpose of being a sock puppet.

I can see the logic of not using your real name. Using your real name always leads to COI.

I may be adding to this article but not as a sock puppet of Nicolaas J Smith.

I may ask for the username Nicolaas J Smith to be deleted. I have not yet done that.

I better do it straight away so as not to technically be a sock puppet of Nicolaas J Smith.

Herbou 10:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you take a look at WP:Username. There is information on both changing your username and other factors. Please keep in mind that changing your username does not remove or otherwise resolve conflict of interest issues.--Gregalton 12:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

International corporations

I think an important practical use is missing - the one in international corporations, where they use units of account for trade between members of a group in different currency zones.ML-Est 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

I am new at editing so I don't know if I have the right place.

I have been reading the "Unit of Account" entry and I am slightly confused.

I can't seem to find any real definition of "unit of account" in the way I understand definitions.

Am I missing something?

It would be nice if Herbou would take a look at this entry to see if he is totally satisfied.

In the meantime, I shall try to write a definition and contribute it for review.

Front Line Grunt (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Medieval accounting

Peter Spuffords 1986 "Handbook of medieval exchange" Introduction says

In most parts of late medieval Europe, and in many places up to the eighteenth or even the nineteenth century, a dichotomy existed in the functions of money. On the one hand, money of account was the measure of value, whilst on the other, the actual coin was the medium of exchange and the store of wealth.

Money of account derived its name from its function. As a measure of value it was used almost exclusively for accounting purposes. Most financial transactions were first determined and expressed in money of account, although payments were naturally made subsequently in coin, or surprisingly often in other goods. Coin itself was valued as a commodity in terms of money of account, and, like any other commodity, its value frequently varied. This variation of the value of coin in terms of money of account has been the cause of much confusion of thought about the nature of money of account. This confusion has resulted in the expression of a differing concept of money of account by practically every writer on medieval money.

With the decline of the denier at different rates, in different places, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a standard of reference was needed for the wide variety of deniers that might be circulating in any region in addition to the indigenous coinage. Such a need was particularly felt in such regions as Champagne because of the international trading fairs there. With the introduction in the thirteenth century of the fine silver grosso and the gold florin in addition to the often base denaro, a common denominator became necessary to express the varying values of gold, silver and billon coins. Money of account supplied both these needs.

Rod57 (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Split article?

As it stands, this article seems to be trying to cover two totally separate topics with the same name. If this is the case, the article should actually be split into two: Unit of account (economics) and Unit of account (financial accounting). Depending on whether there's a single primary topic, this article can be either redirected to one of the two, or turned into a simple disambiguation page. V2Blast (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• @V2Blast: Support, the economics and accounting uses appear to be distinct. I recommend going ahead with split, or may using a WP:RFC to try to get more input. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Disagree (weakly) Right now, both the economics and financial accounting parts of the article are short, and splitting it would just create two stubs. However, I do agree that it needs to be split; just not now and only when it's longer. RBolton123 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)