Problem, the people doing the "official" scoring may alter the values. As they do in exam-grade inflation for example. Or deflate the currency Paper money is no different from Metal-money (which was "assumed" to have an intrinsic value) because it could be adulterated with less-valuable metals. It's still inflation.
Could one reverse-engineer money, as by taking the British "standard" basket-of-goods used to measure inflation, and making that basket the standard, and pegging money to it, rather than the other way around ? Um.
Or taking the average working week and people's labour over the whole popualation. Does one use Mode / Median / Mean values (in increasing order) or a weighted average-of-those-averages?
Try reading "Paper Promises" by Philip Coggan?
]]>Note that it then makes sense to separate the cost of something (the inputs sacrificed by the producer) and the value of something (the benefits from consumption felt by the consumer).
]]>It's a means of exchange, but in some communities there's not enough (see LETS, an ad-hoc fix to this problem) and in others there's presumably too much.
It's a store of value, but due to inflation it's not a very good one.
It's a measure of value and a unit of account, but as soon as any amount of time is involved it has to be adjusted for inflation so the real unit of account is actually "inflation-adjusted money".
It's a standard of deferred payment, but the future rate of inflation is unknown so it's only really a standard in that both parties have agreed to it and, well, one of them will be lucky.
]]>In many places, it also extinguishes private debts; if repayment is proffered in legal tender and the creditor refuses it, courts will consider the debt repaid.
]]>Yes indeed ...
(I'm continuing to take notes on what people think money is. To those of you who've read the Graeber book, I'd be grateful if you could mention it in your comments.)
]]>(You've read the infamous paragraph and kept on going, for which, kudos.)
]]>Yep.
The iPad is physically too large for comfort as a reading device -- it's great for other purposes, but the combination of the sharp lower edge with the weight, and the lack of pocketability, make it sub-optimal. I've been using e-ink readers for years, but they're also sub-optimal due to display lag. If Apple made a 7" iPad I'd grab one in a shot -- but they don't, so the Kindle Fire is the next best thing (at least for reading).
I can't justify buying a full-fat 7" Android tablet as well as the iPad -- "full fat" meaning one with 3G, bluetooth, a significantly faster CPU, and the ability to do cool shit like, er, playing games or editing Word documents -- but the KF fits the minimum spec for a modern backlit LCD ebook reader, and they're selling them more or less at cost. (A Kindle Fire in the US cost me what a Kindle Keyboard sells for in the UK.)
]]>Go read the book; he goes on at length about the nature of "primitive currencies" (the old anthropological term: modern term is "social currencies") and specifically discusses the role of wampum and cloth. TL;DR version is that he identifies fundamental differences in the role these currencies play as placeholders for social relationships that aren't necessarily interchangeable with other types of goods or services.
(It's always unwise to confuse an interview -- the author speaking informally, off the cuff, and being transcribed by a journalist who may or may not be editing the stream -- with a researched and edited document.)
]]>You didn't answer the question. Which is not about the current state of the British economy, but somewhat larger and more abstract ...
]]>I'm not talking about post-1972 western economies; I'm talking about money in the broadest historical context.
(Question triggered by "Debt: The First Five Thousand Years" by David Graeber, which should give you an idea of the time scale I'm contemplating.)
]]>If you receive credit you may also be in debt, of course.
But it is banks that seem for now and the future to be the only entities to issue credit. Credit crunches are as much a threat to economies as debt, and perhaps more.
Though there some historical aspects of this, confined only to this nation's history (U.S.), that I do know something about, I'm not an informed commentator on these matters. CS is interested in the future, and my expertise, such as it is, is the past!
Love, C.
]]>Money by itself is valueless. It's a relatively socially neutral (vs drugs or sex) way to get people to act out of character. Promise money to get people to do icky things like work. Threaten to take away money to keep people from doing socially unacceptable things. It seems like a particularly clunky system that's prone to abuse.
]]>