What is Money?

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

playlist:: lecture series: "What is Money" (presented by the Congressional office of Ron Paul from 2011 to 2012)

 

 

What is "Money"?

a position paper by:

Jonathan Barlow Gee

for: the Pythagorean Order of Death

April 19, 2012; Tallahassee, Florida, US.

 

~~~ introduction ~~~

 

The argument has been made by fiat-capitalists that if paper can be made to work like "money," then "money" is proven to work in the form of any substance, no matter how insubstantial. The argument, made prior to this by nowadays so-called "gold bugs," is that "only gold and silver can be legal tender," or in other words, "only gold is real money." To fiat-capitalists gold is a "commodity," but it is not "money," because "money," as such, has no fixed value, and can be substituted for by any commodity or substance, not only gold or silver. To gold-bugs the use of fiat-capital is anathema in general, as a form of legalised counterfeiting, but some, like Ron Paul, are willing to compromise on the concept of "competing currencies," where paper-money (the USDollar) and gold coins (priced as "G" or "Au") would be allowed to operate parallel in pricing consumer goods. The argument by Ron Paul is that, eventually the people will migrate to the use of gold as a more stable form of pricing structure, where costs don't rise due to inflation of the money-supply (such as by the Fed's "QE" - quantitative easing - and "TARP" - toxic asset re-posession" - programs).

 

The argument, however overly-philosophical and impractical, between gold-bugs and fiat-capitalists is over the definition of the word, "money." What constitutes "money," what other words describe it best and most consicely? These, rather silly, questions have been the subject of "debate" for the last 3 aeons (each aeon is two millennia, so that's around about 6,000 years people have been arguing this topic). I don't intend to propose any end-all / be-all solution to this debate in this brief exposition, because the debate itself is the dillema, and no contribution to the debate on its topic will bring it to an end on its own. Only a force exterior to any issue can impose on to postpone it.

 

~~~ the textbook definition ~~~

 

So, to enter the fray: let's go to the modern, online version of the dictionary, and find out the basic modern understanding of the concept we are about to dissect more thoroughly::

 

Definition of MONEY

1: something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as

a : officially coined or stamped metal currency

b : money of account

c : paper money

2a : wealth reckoned in terms of money

b : an amount of money

c plural : sums of money : funds

3: a form or denomination of coin or paper money

4a : the first, second, and third place winners (as in a horse or dog race) —usually used in the phrases in the money or out of the money

b : prize money <his horse took third money>

5a : persons or interests possessing or controlling great wealth

b : a position of wealth <born into money>

 

source:: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money

 

So, essentially, money is an object, subject to being acted upon by being exchanged for other objects. I'll return to the different meaning for "money" philosophically apart from practicality in a moment, however for now let's just stick to simple physical material realities. If money is a good thing, or is meant to be able to be used as such, then it must be a relatively industructable substance. The need for money to be a substance difficult (or impossible) to destroy (or dimminish by fractioning) is the "elixer vitae," the "unknown ideal," of Capital. The need for money to be indestructible is based on a reflection of the value of its use: if it is a good thing and worthy of being desired, it should be something durable enough to be useful over a very long time. One would not value a "glass hammer," for example, in practical terms. In philosophical terms, as I'll address next, there is room left open for more debate.

 

Philosophically speaking, "money is a symbol." It is a symbol for value; and because it is a symbol, by definition it cannot be that which it is symbolising itself; it has to replicate that which it embodies without dimminishing its original source. Thus, essentially, "money" as a symbol is alike a chalice or cup that dips into an ocean of meanings for the concept of "value." That which money extracts is considered "value" because it increases the benefit for the recipient while not permanently removing the source of its production, and thus allowing all others to share the same source and to receive the same benefit from its use. Something that is a "value" provides benefit first to an individual, but also is available for all. Thus, "money" is the cup that holds the meaning "value," which in turn is drawn from the indepletable ocean of all meanings. "Money" is the symbol and "value" that which is symbolised. Therefore, because a symbol cannot be irreplicable, and because value must prove nearly indestructibly durable, "money" is not the cup itself, but a measurement of "value" defined by the dimensions of that cup. "Money" contains "Value" like a cup holds water. Yet, the "philosophical" argument continues to this day whether "money" is the cup (the substance itself) or the amount of "value" it can hold (a standard measuring quantity).

 

This is all true, so far at least, for "money" as a "symbol" of "value" both "practically," in terms of economic laws, such as the demand for useful tools, and "philosophically," in terms of moral law, such as arguing for the "highest good" and the "greatest value," etc. The focus in moral law is on mortal impermanance as an imperative justification for seeking "God" in an "afterlife" of "eternal returns" on one's justly accumulated "karma," or moral deeds. The focus on economic law is on how to survive in the reality of their natural and/or artificial surrounding environment. Money, although it never loses ground on the side of "practicality," eventually loses the "moral high-ground" in the "philosophical" argument because it is an imperfect device as a symbol of value.

 

Regardless of what object we call "money," the concept of symbolising a value is impossible to achieve in reality. Value, because it is indestructable and cannot be replicated, can also not be dimminished by fractioning, and is thus not something that can be packaged and replicated in the form of symbols. The "cup drawing water from the ocean" analogy fo rmonetary value is logically flawed; in short, the "money-cup" can leak out all the value it can hold, and no cup itself can make brine potable anyway.

 

The "value" of "money" does not exist due to the nature of its substance, but only insofar as that substance can serve as a standard unit. The "standard unit" is the "value" of the "symbol" that is "money."

 

~~~ money as a means, a medium and a measure ~~~

 

Money is predicated on uncertainty; money arises as a result necessitated by uncertainty. Uncertainity is calculated binarly: one is certain, zero is uncertain. The "zero-dimension" is uncertainity, while the first dimension arises from within this womb as a line extended from a point by collapsing uncertainity in on itself, and imploding nothingness into the form of our cosmic singularity. All reality within our cosmic singularity fluctuates between certainities and uncertainties and this "probablistic relativism" constitutes the fabric of space-time's sub-atomic "quantum-foam."

 

Thus, the basic measuring unit in our dimensional reality is a ruler based on a number-line with zero as the origin-point and a single standard-unit repeated ad infinitum. Just as the substance below the linear-ruler determines the laws that the ruler is designed to measure, and this substance is binary probabilistic-uncertainity itself, so too does the most basic measuring device apply this rule of binary polarity juxtaposing zero and one.

 

Because "uncertainity" is calculated binarily, is measured by a standard-unit by a rule, and is the predecessor and cause for the coming into existence of money, we may then apply this law again to money itself and speculate that, if "uncertainity is binary," then "math is digital." If we accept only two sums (zero or one) as in binary, we measure certainity opposing uncertainity. If we accept more than these two sums, and incorporate all  other available digits, then we can begin to measure sums of real substances in 3-dimensional (6 directional) material reality. The application of infinite digital sums to measuring substances in material reality is a specialised field of math called "economics," and the standard unit it uses to measure everything in this field is called "money."

 

Applying math to measuring probabilistic uncertainity does not cause "spooky action at a distance" by "operant observer principle" to collapse the universal wave-function of all potential quanta over all time (both past and future). It does not make "uncertainity" cease, nor replace it with "certainty." It does not elevate the standard of mankind's ego to the role nor hubris level of a, nor of the, "God." It simply fills the demand to provide a useful tool.

 

Economic law provides the standard-unit of "money" as the basis for measurement of all substances' value in material reality; but, just as the measures we apply to distance and duration are flexible - such as the aplication of the inch or the foot as opposed to the meter or yard, and such as the application of "parsecs" as the unit of measurement for light-year distances - so too must the standard unit of economic law, that being "money," be flexible as well.

 

Firstly, money is arbitrary. It is a standard unit, but one that may be selected at random. To symbolise value money must replicate certain traits - such as relative indestructibility, indepletability through fractioning, and infinite replicability. However, we have free-will (some believe granted to us by God, although, unlike God, the existence of free-will is undeniable), and because we have the right to choose (even if we are making a mistake, even if doing so out of spite and willful ignorance of morality), we can designate any arbitrary measurement of value as the standard-unit that is "money."

 

Secondly, money is relative. It is a standard unit, but one that measures a reality that is fluidly dynamic and ever-changeing. Therefore, the "value" of "money" again loses "philosophical" ground on account of no substance being a perfect reflection of ideal value, and thus of no measurement being a perfect standard unit of value. Again, the "cup leaks," and thus the concept of "drawing value from the sea of meaning" holds only poetic, but not logical, water.

 

What we remain with, rather than any obvious universally applicable standard-unit for the measurement of value in material reality, is instead a plethora of imperfect alternative options, and the free-will to choose the "least evil" of all possible. Thus, "money" is considered "immoral" (even called the "root of all evil"), even though "money" is only an attempt to apply a standard unit to measuring value in material reality, to provide a useful tool for digital math.

 

~~~ what substance best serves the role of "money" ~~~

 

"Money" is a "symbol" for a "standard-unit" of "value" in material reality. As a "value" money must be indestructible and indivisible. As a "symbol" money must be infinitely replicable, and must be something that is NOT the same thing as what it symbolises in itself. As a "symbol" of "value," therefore, "money" is negated from necessarily being a "value" in itself, and thus need not be indestructible nor indivisible; thus, the only remaining trait "money" needs to posses to fit the definition of a "symbol" of "value" is the trait of all symbols, that they be infinitely replicable.

 

The "crucifix cross" is a symbol of "Christianity." Thus, the crucifix cross itself cannot define (by significantly encompassing) the entirety of "Christianity." In this way symbols strengthen ideal causes, by encouraging the belief ideal causes supercede the significance of the symbol alone. The moral law, "worship no idols" (often interpreted as "no false idols" implying some "idols" maybe true) being applied to the use of symbols for values depends entirely on the interpretation of the concept of "belief" and what it means for any individual to "believe" something. There can be no standard definition for "belief" because it is unique to each individual; likewise there can be no single, fixed, permanent definition agreed upon by all forever for the best symbol for value in general.

 

For this reason, it is an utterly ridiculous topic to "philosophically" argue over, considering no answer is possible to the question of "what substance best serves the role of money." It would be like asking whether "crosses" are "more Christian" if they are made of metal or of wood. The nature of the substance itself does not determine its "value as money," only its "monetary value." Money, again, is an ideal, standardised measuring unit meant to be applied, as equally and universally as possible, to all forms of substance in material reality. "Money" does not exist in and of itself. It is an idea, symbolised by material goods and services to which we assign "monetary value."

 

Because these material goods and activities of personal service each has it's own unique individual "monetary value," and because the "monetary value" of each item (good or service) to every other is relative (due to the standardised-unit being arbitrary and necessarily flexible), and because of the need for "money" as a "symbol" to be infinitely replicable (a useful tool) superceding the need for it to be a "value" (both permanent and non-depletable), the idea of "money" has no exactly perfect match in the realm of real substances of material object in reality. It can no more be likened to any element (or force) than it can be to any one form of life or one form of environment.

 

"Money" as a standard unit symbolising values of substances in material reality encompasses all items of substance in all material reality. Thus, because money is both the "cup" and the "ocean," both the "zero" and the "infinite," as well as all things in between, it cannot be likened to only any one material object in reality. It is an idea, alike the idea of "power," of "free will," or of "God." It can neither be proven to exist, nor to non-exist, but the idea is argued about by all who have come to be aware of it, and thus, for all who know of it (both believers and non-believers) the idea is underniably known to exist. "Power" exists; "free will" exists; "God" exists; because ideas can be known, and thus can be said, themselves, to exist. But ideas include both the known and unknown, and apply by extent to those unaware of them as well, if only by unforeseen consequences propagating randomly. Thus, ideas (ALL ideas) both exist and non-exist simultaneously, which supercedes the ability of any substance in material reality to replicate, as all material substances, as a necessary requisite for being defined as "real," must only exist until they cease to, and cannot "non-exist" at the same time.

 

Money is an idea, and thus can both exist and non-exist at the same time. Thus, no material substance can fully encompass the full value of a standard-unit's use as a symbolic tool. The idea of "money" as a standard-unit that can be replicated universally can be applied across the board to all commodities and activities. The "economy" and any "monetary unit" are thus holographically fractals of one another. "Money" is the device upon which the "economy" is the measure at the macro-end, and a "monetary unit" is the measure at the micro-end. "Money is a standard unit in the measure of value." It cannot be otherwise.

 

~~~ conclusion ~~~

 

So, what is the "bottom line"? Who is right and who is wrong between the fiat-capitalists and the "gold-bugs"? The answer is, again, neither of them, because their "philosophical" argument is entirely moot and counter-productive. The best solution to the debate between "gold and silver" and "paper and cedit" is, as Ron Paul advocates, to use both. Ultimately, one may prove more effective than the other, but it may prove to benefit both by being allowed to co-exist in parallel pricing structures. In truth, the best method of resolving the "economic crisis" over "what is money" would be to stop empowering those causing it by their demanding a solution to this "crisis" and this "question" entirely. However, insofar as we have conditioned ourselves to believe we NEED money to SURVIVE, we must continue, at least for now, to make use of it as a symbolic tool and idea. Thus, what will benefit the greatest population the most would be to advocate learning simple principles of fair-transaction, and to strengthen shared definitons of what constitutes the "economy" itself.

 

This means understanding that "bear market" conservatives and "bull market" liberals are both at fault, and that neither has made the wise choices that needed to be made at the time they needed to make them. It means, also, understanding that "money is 1/2 of every transaction" while also understanding that "labour is the other 1/2 of every transaction;" where there is input-labour, out-put labour and these combine to form the sum of "money" value of the transaction. These are simple market principles that we can all adhere and agree to easily, starting today, if we choose. I hope we will choose wisely, and that we can continue to live in peace, seeking prosperity, without fear of imminent destruction. PEACE!

[Jarrett Gornto]

let start a discution on this Jhon .. the idea behind bartered trade verses .. the ego and the continental coin .. ie. the swedish coin has a set net amount as to the germen coin which is invarably different in net worth .. thats an analagy to preface the idea of the un constAnt values of the net amount of the permed trade asset ..

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jarrett,

If I take the context of your comment correctly, you're introducing the notion of "standardized weights and measures" as the method for ascertaining amount of value per varying international coin exchange rates. In fact, it's the percentage of each coin that is made of a so-called "precious metal" that has "weighable" value in the standardized measurement system, because it is the metallic content that is the measurement of the coin's value, and not the fact that it is a coin in itself. This is because precious-metals are a commodity, as Bernanke has pointed out as well, rather than innately bound to be a currency, however, when used as a currency basis, that is, when valued at a fixed rate based on percentage of total global assets of that commodity, precious-metals do prove superior to most other forms of media for measuring other values against. In other words, it's not the quality of the commodity's content that's different between one national coin and another, necessarily, because right now we can measure them according to different types of currency that are, themselves, in turn, different relative to one another as well. This problem would not be solved by implementing a so-called "one world currency" or "global monetary unit" as many these days propose. In fact, the solution comes from restoring the concept of value to the measured commodity itself, and not over-valuing the side of the equation measured as "money." I could be mis-reading your intention though in your comment, so if you mean to address direct trade barter economies, and not simply international currency exchange rates, allow me to segue also into that topic as well: "fair trades" or direct-exchange of commodity, good or service in exchange for another, without using any kind of monetary middle-management mechanism, is a "barter-based economy," and this makes up the "black market" we use more often than we admit, because there is no "profit margin" involved in it. You trade something worth X amount for something else worth X amount, but the X amount is only ever exchanged in the form of a signature on a contract or in a handshake. There's no direct transfer of sums of funds. Some people are so accustomed to capitalism the idea we had a solely "barter-based economy" for the majority of our species' history still amazes them today. However, the only reason to use a 3rd-party method of exchange is to hoard this sum and remove it from free-market economic availability, access and use. In short, if people use gold as money, they hoard gold to symbolize their social status as being rich and wealthy, and if people use paper cash as money, they hoard paper cash to symbolize their social status as rich and wealthy. In practical use it doesn't matter what the substance of this exchanged 3rd-party mechanism is, however it also holds true that in practical use, precious-metals work best.

Thanks for your post! PEACE! - Jon

[Jarrett Gornto]

hello : today i would like to speak about the responsability of action reaction and the duties of proper spending of what we learned to be as " money " we mainly need to foucus on the idea of proper spending .. Today i had the luxiory of driving my moms cAr .. as i was riding along it hit me all at once .. those people that deserve jobs have none because or basket " or investments " are not properly executed .... 111 instead of rewarding and dealing with the angushishes of unorginized direction we, for example supply our state a nd counties with " state prisoners " basicly " trash .. to do the work many peoples that are educAted and have a normal proccess in life Are neglected due to these bigoted means of false productivity .. in order to procreate growth .. healthy specimens, or normal willing members of society need to replace these convit dejects of so ciety and reward the people who deserve to help have and propetuate .. county state and social maintaninces .. trash mantaining life does not promote life .. it promotes falsaties of our plural soccilia as a whoe of disgust on filth .. theze are false disiplenes with master martyers and falsateys in all regards ....
worthy people of jobs should be granted the opurtunity to work and do that of what these mAsters of woe choose to force upon people sz z i have enough pride to say the christan " or drunk methods " of bussines must stop . in order to fill in those holez .. we need viable aimiable peoples to fill them .. not prison trash doing so so they can buy thier sodas in jail .. wtf zzzz i got your develop ment ..

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jarrett,

I'm not sure about whose development it is, but you've definitely posted a multi-layered fabric combining multiple simultaneous threads of valid logical reasoning that, when combined all into a single tapestry, form an intricate pattern. Your propositions remind me of those of Anakin Skywalker in star wars: "Attack of the Clones," in short, over-simplified. You can't hope to win people to your argument by presenting your outright opinion; it would be wiser to phrase your considerations in softer language, and in less direct angles of point of view. If you generalize too much, people reading your writing will lose confidence, and if you generalize too little, people reading your writing will forget the topic. If you follow your argument through to its usual conclusion, in other words, it leads to what Yoda called a "dark place." Nevertheless, your argument has been made before, if I understand it, that those who "take out the garbage" are treated as "garbage" themselves by society for some specific reason that has some moral lesson for us as humans. If you can figure your way out of this argument, let me know how, because it seems like a one-way dead-end street from where I see it. That being said, I only caution against this line of reasoning BECAUSE it is logically unassailable - it is a human quirk that has not yet proven to have a rational explanation for its cause. Some people are poor, but that does not make them less worthy of their lives. Nevertheless, society provides us evidence to the contrary, thus providing the conundrum. On the other hand, imagine a world where we all had to compost our own waste! PEACE! - Jon