I was rather snarkey in my previous posting on the subject:
It's not money, it's us. We seem to have an infinite capacity to agrandize
ourselves and to cheapen and defraud others. Money is simply one of the
many tools we use to do so. In countries like Canada, Australia and the US
there are some pretty strict rules about how far we can go in doing that.
It would seem that in Zimbabwe and other places that have experienced high
rates of inflation -- those in power robbing the powerless -- whatever rules
may have existed didn't matter a tinker's damn.
What I should have added is that the value of money depends greatly on the
stability of the country and authority that issues the money. In Canada, we
can expect that the dollar coin in our pocket will be worth a dollor tomorrow,
though it may be worth .95$s two or three years from now. In politically and
economically disastrous Zimbabwe, a dollar may be worth a dollar today but only
.90$'s tomorrow.
As I may have mentioned in a previous posting, when I spent a month at ground
level in Russia in 1995, the place was an economic disaster. Much of the
economy, or what was left of it, had gone underground so the government could
not find it for taxation purposes. To keep itself going, the government
printed large quantities of roubles, driving the rouble from parity with the US
dollar to 500 roubles to the dollar by 1995. This resulted in extreme hardship
for people on relatively fixed incomes (most people, probably). A typical
sight at a metro station was elderly people selling their belongings so that
they could live for another day.
I seem to recall that community currencies received considerable discussion on
this list some years ago. In my opinion, if they were to work they would need
the same kind of rigid stability that one finds in traditional Mennonite or
Hutterite communities, where there is a deeply entrenched belief system and
everyone has an assigned role. But of course in such communities, you might
not need a currency at all, though the community would need some money in the
bank to purchase things it couldn't make itself.
Perhaps the solution for a place like Zimbabwe, where the country as a whole is
disintegrating, is to send in Mennonite and Hutterite missionaries to
indoctrinate people and help them to develop little Amish-like communities.
I'm kidding of course, but I really don't see much else working.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:55 AM
Subject: [Futurework] Different kinds of money
> Arthur referred to the comments made by Verdon to my post on alternative
> money. Somehow I lost this post and didn't properly acknowledge it. It is
> reproduced in full below, and I apologise to Verdon.
>
> Arthur is entirely correct. Verdon does much which is useful in his
> exploration the role and nature of money.
>
> He correctly suggests that money began as something which was intrinsically
> valuable in its own right. Notwithstanding this, however, money was always
> a measure against which the value of one item could be compared with another
> (ie wheat compared with shoes, not wheat compared with the particular unit
> which comprised money in that society and then shoes compared with the money
> unit).
>
> The reason this is important, as Verdon goes on to imply, is that anything
> can represent money - so long as those who use it as money agree that it is
> valuable and will exchange it for whatever they have or want.
>
> Verdon then goes on to point out the inherent subjectivity of any human
> measurement - and that applies to money whether the unit of money is
> intrinsically valuable or not.
>
> In the modern world of money we pretend that this subjectivity doesn't exist
> by quoting official looking exchange rates on the evening news (much as
> Verdon points out that we pretend objectivity in Olympic diving by having
> multiple judges).
>
> However, all decisions about money are subjective - ie they are about trust.
> Hence, Verdon and Arthur are right, anything can be money - but the key
> issue is what is it about anything which is chosen as money which might make
> people believe in its value.
>
> The reason why I go on about this is simply that most of us most of the time
> forget the criticality of the trust which underpins our entire monetary
> system. Or at least, we choose to forget it because otherwise we would have
> to deal with it.
>
> Those in control of our current money systems are hell bent on making a
> profit from them (ergo the Zimbabwe experience in which the despot is
> attempting to manipulate money to his advantage, and seems to be failing).
>
> Many of us feel dissatisfied by the current system (though usually for
> different reasons, which is why it is so hard to get a real discussion
> going) - I have long concluded that it can't be reformed short of the sort
> of disastrous revolution which I have devoted the past twelve years of my
> live to avoiding.
>
> Hence, I am interested in how small groups of people might come together to
> agree that something outside the conventional dollar might be their
> 'currency' and how a multiplicity of such decisions might increase the
> likelihood that 'currency' was put to a better use.
>
> Ultimately, this is all because I despair that the current economic system
> is capable of providing work for all who want it - and I hope (and believe)
> that this issue might be successfully tackled through the creation of a
> network of community currencies which operate 'below the radar' of the
> conventional system.
>
> Thanks to Arthur and Verdon for encouraging me to think this through.
>
>
> Charles Brass
> Chairman
> futures foundation
> phone:1300 727328
> (International 61 3 9459 0244)
> fax: 61 3 9459 0344
> PO Box 122
> Fairfield 3078
> www.futuresfoundation.org.au
>
> the mission of the futures foundation is:
> "...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..."
>
>
>
> I thought the contribution by Verdon was of interest.
>
> If I have it right he seemed to be saying: To have a trial project where
> contributions are valued and rewarded with money. Not a strict wage for
> labour system but, rather, payment for contributions that are valued by the
> broader community. This could be part of a guaranteed annual income trial
> as well.
>
> The trick will be to get consensus on what is valued and gets to define it.
>
> Verdon Said:
> I have spent sometime thinking about this. In many ways I don't think money
> is the root of the problem, rather it is the particular economic system that
> we have created in the last few hundred years that is the problem
> - specifically the structure by which we can gain access to money - which is
> generally selling our labour. My theory of money -
> a story of value, a medium of exchange, a number system.
>
> Money used to be a concrete intrinsically valuable thing - gold, silver
> (other metals). There were cultures/societies that had a form of money that
> was not intrinsically valuable (wampum, shells, even Gengis Khan
> developed/extended the use of paper money, etc). But for the sake of brevity
> this first proposition is accurate enough.
>
> At some point money became a concrete symbol for something intrinsically
> valuable - coins (worth more than the metal they contained), paper, etc.
>
> Later money became a concrete symbol for a promise of value (e.g. paper and
> coin no longer backed by gold).
>
> Now the majority of money is no longer concrete, rather the majority of
> money is epheral and electronic bits.
>
> The subjective perception of Value
> A beanie babe at $5.99 is the same beanie baby even if it sells for $14.99.
> What makes the difference?
>
> An Olympic judge holding a score of 7.9 versus one holding up a scoreof 9.8.
> We don't actually know if the score of 7.9 is actually a higher score
> because the judge is a better and more experienced judge, we overcome the
> inaccessible assessment of the subjective perception of value by accepting
> the illusion of precision that a number system provides. The number system
> becomes a means of exchange.
>
> Money is theoretically meant to be a store of value (which is really meant
> to represent a quantity/quality of labour/work). But since all value
> inevitably is context dependent - relative to its own niche in its own
> ecology, it is impossible to fix a particular quantity of anything as
> a standard measure of value. So we rely on the precision that the number
> systems provides, which works well enough when scores, values are
> aggragated.
> So seven Olympic judges all have different subjective perceptions of value
> which they choose to represent as a numerical
> score on a range of 1-10 (or 1-100) and by aggregating/averaging we end up
> with
> a good enough measure.
>
> It strikes my that if enough people become assessor than anything can be
> given a number representing their subjective perceptions of value and in
> turn those perceptions can be aggregated/average for good-enough measure
> of the value of the thing(s) perceived.
>
> Anything can be translated (good-enough translated) into a monetary value.
>
> Now the problem is how to people access the means of exchange - the task
> is to create an economy where there are more way to access the means of
> exchange than selling one's labour to an employer. If any contribution to
> society, local or global, can be assess by enough subjective perceivers
> than a good enough measure of the value of their contribution can be made.
>
> Developing a type of stock market where contributions (art, the invisible
> work of homemakers and community builders, volunteers, etc) are valued
> than creating a tax/redistribution systems based on full-cost accounting
> of commercial activities is possible. This would create a type of guaranteed
> income structure.
>
> The above is just a concept, meant to move outside of the box.
> Any society/culture of significant size and complexity needs an economy.
> A market system does not need to be synonymous with capitalism, or
> completely dominated by an imbalance priviledge of any one or two of
> the 'three factors of land, labour and capital'. One can conceive of
> market socialism.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
> http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
