Talk:Monetization

Julie was not sure this terms existed.

What is un-monetized debt?

Isn't monetized debt simply debt? Is there such a thing as a government debt that is un-monetized? 99.163.50.5 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In Russia

I have removed the section below as being too specific to one country, although I think there is a sense of the word usage here which could be inserted. Dear IP numbered editor: the usage in Russian is actually a specific usage of one of the meanings of the term in economics, referring to exactly what was attempted with the Russian reform (no opinion on the effectiveness of the reform). It is a long standing theory of economists that it is more efficient to (for example) provide someone with the monetary equivalent of, say, a litre of milk rather than a litre of milk in real form. Those who get more utility from milk than money will buy milk; those who get more value out of something else will not buy milk. (One of the underlying criticisms is that the program above would amount to a subsidisation of milk producers).

The 2005 Russian reform was therefore a textbook case of replacing non-monetary benefits with their (supposedly) monetary equivalents, in that some pensioners (for example) would prefer e.g. public transport and others something else and that overall efficiency would be improved.--Gregalton (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The word monetization (монетизация) was also used for a Russian reform of 2005, fully titled ``monetization of preferences.

Before this reform there were a large system of preferences: free/reduced price of travels on local transport, free supply of drugs, free health resort treatment, etc. for diverse categories: military personnel, disabled persons of various degree, and separately, persons disabled due to WWII, Chernobyl disaster liquidators, inhabitants of Leningard under the siege, former political prisoners, and just for all pensioners (women 55+, men 60+). This system was a legacy of Soviet union, but heavily extended by populist laws of central and regional authorities during 90s.

By the law 122-ФЗ of 22 August 2004 this system was transformed into cash payments by various schemes:

• abolition of preference, compensated by raising of wage (e.g. free use of local transport for military personnel) or pension (e.g. different preferences for Chernobyl liquidators)
• for three most important preferences (free local transport, 50%-price suburban rail transport, free supply of drugs): a choice between this preference and some extra money.

The losses of local transportation companies, railroad company and medicine distributors were covered by government (federal or regional).

The main causes of tension in this scheme were the following:

• technical and bureaucratic problems (e.g. for usage of 50% discount for suburban rail transport a person should present a paper from local State Pension Fund office stating he doesn't choose money compensation);
• separation of all preference-recipients into federal and regional accordingly to the body issuing a preference legislation. The largest group, that is pensioners, was regional. It was the main cause of problems:
  • In poor regions local government had to abolish these preferences with small or zero compensation.
  • Even if these preferences retained, they could apply only to pensioners of this region, so, e.g. Moscow Oblast pensioners can't use Moscow metro and buses freely. (Later these problems will be generally solved by the series of bi-lateral agreements between neighbouring regions.)

The wave of protests emerged in various parts of Russia in the beginning of 2005 as this law started to work. But government measures (raising of compensations, normalisation of bureaucratic mechanisms, etc.) eventually neutralize it.

A long-term effects of monetization were different. Some people take benefits (e.g. in rural areas without any local transport they may receive some extra money), some take losses. Transport companies and railroad has obvious benefits from monetization as they start to receive money when these categories use their services (previously in some regions more than a half of passengers doesn't pay for municipal transport without any compensation to the companies). Effects on medical system are controversial. Doctors and nurses have to use their time to fill in many forms to justify free receipts, thus they have less time for their main tasks. This situation can become better as automatization of document flow in this area will grown.

Different kinds of monetization

This may need to be split into sections, or even different articles, like "monetization of debt", "monetization of web sites", "monetization of water", etc. These are all quite different concepts.

Monetization of debt is a complex subject in economics, finance, and politics, probably worth its own article. --John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition

The article currently states: "Monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender." What is the source for this definition? It doesn't look right to me. Perhaps a more precise statement would be: "Monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into currency or a currency equivalent. (?) The terms "legal tender" and "currency" are not necessarily synonymous (although, of course, in the real world the tender of the legal currency of a nation such as that of the United States in payment of an antecedent debt may be treated as legal tender). We may need to look for some sourcing for a precise definition of the term "monetization." Famspear (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a poor article on an important subject. It needs expert attention. Especially since many of the world's countries are currently trying to figure out how to monetize the debt created to bail out the banking mess. --John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fake word coined by fake people

"Monetize" is a fake word made up by people who think they sound more learned by using a strange and somewhat difficult to pronounce term.  Goods or services may have monetary value—they aren't "monetized."  Everything has potential monetary value, so everything is "monetized."  "Monetize" is in the same class "crowdsource."  Let's remove stupid, Yuppie-sounding terms like "monetize" from the English language!

As for "monetized debt," that would be redundant if "monetize" and its derivatives were real words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.16.216.5 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

it is popular in the present for venture capitalists (and similar business press) to talk about "montetizing" companies, meaning to extract a profit or a positive cash flow from. This is a new usage that is a "fake word by fake people". But the traditional meaning from the field of economics as explained in this article is not a fake word; it is important to be able to use a verb to speak about changes in the money supply. The comment to which I am responding is keen with regard to popular culture, but ignorant of economics.