"... To replace it (the money system) you’d actually have to re-grow our entire economic organism, ....Anybody that’s imagining a wholesale replacement of one monetary system for another, and is not expecting the body to die in the process, is… well... delusional."
This is an assumption not a fact. First what do you mean by "wholesale replacement"? If you are suffering from scurvy several vital systems (connective, circulatory, immune, etc..) cease to function, do you replace them or do you correct them by adding enough of one of the simplest molecules (C6H8O6 aka Vitamin C) known to biochemistry? If you do add vitamin C, a "wholesale replacement" has taken place, i.e. from dysfunctional system A to functional system B. But notice that little was done to achieve such a colossal transformation.
The take home is to know how to define a system, removing one detail completely transforms a system from a functional <=> dysfunctional, stable <=> unstable, passive <=> active. In the case of money systems mainstream or alternative, we need to first determine the problem statement they are to address and only then can we talk about what requirements need to be satisfied e.g. do we need to produce alternatives or will a simple correction of what is already in place be sufficient?
Finally, you need to understand how systems affect other systems they come into contact with, e.g. any passive system cannot coexist in conjunction with an active system unless it is completely isolated and independent.
I like the fact that you're playing with the metaphor. I guess I doubt whether there's really something 'wrong' with our system: in your scurvy metaphor, there's an existing body, with an existing state of balance, that then gets disrupted by some issue (i.e. it gets sick) that then calls for it to be 'fixed' with the addition of something. In the case of our economic system, I don't think it is in the situation of needing to be 'fixed', because I think it's actually in its *normal state*, and it's normal state is one that's basically numb to, for example, the destruction of the planet. That's not to say there are not sub-systems and so on that can be altered with 'Vitamin C'. Anyway, thanks for the comment - it's something to be reflected on
"I guess I doubt whether there's really something 'wrong' with our system:..."
What system are you referring to, the money system or the economy? The money system is a mere man-made component of the economy that we can and must fully define and specify. "Economy" on the other hand is an undefined and unspecified complex outcome of changing real world parameters coupled with collective human behaviour. The importance of a money system is its inherent properties and systemic effects on human decisions. Those properties are not the result of some mystery of the cosmos yet to be discovered but of the logic and axioms that are chosen. if those axioms are false then ANY conclusion on top is necessarily invalid.
"...in your scurvy metaphor, there's an existing body, with an existing state of balance, that then gets disrupted by some issue (i.e. it gets sick) that then calls for it to be 'fixed' with the addition of something."
The important point I was making was simpler, essentially that from a systems point of view, system A (human body - Vitamin C) is an entirely different system from system B (human body + Vitamin C). That is to say, it is a mistake to conceive of one being a modality of the other. A car without wheels is a lump of steel not a stationary car.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I find it more difficult than you to make this clear separation between the money system and the economy, and I also don't see that the money system has ever been 'fully defined and specified' from the outset. I feel like when you say 'we can and must' fully define it and specify it, you're making a normative statement about how money should be, rather than how it actually is. I also don't see the clear path you that you seem to be seeing from changing the logic and axioms to changing human behaviour. Also, this Vitamin-meets-car metaphor doesn't intuitively resonate: in your first description you talked about a dysfunctional system being replaced with a functional one due to Vitamin C, and then the dysfunctional system being like a lump of steel, but what does this equate to in the monetary system?
I suspect this is some kind of disciplinary difference. You clearly have more of an engineering vibe than me, but I'm interested to read the Bibo papers when I get a chance.
"Systems" are understood as a set of interacting components. If you change the components you change the system, hence the example of scurvy where the absence of a single component (Vitamin C) drastically transforms an operative human body (system A) into an entirely different (inoperative) system B. The point of that analogy was to illustrate how removing a key component transforms a system into an entirely different system and how simple and often effortless that transformation can be reversed without "replacing the whole system".
The economy is a vast indeterminate complex system with a varying set of component systems of variable behaviour and states (stable, unstable, passive, etc,). Of these some are natural systems i.e. depend on the laws of nature and a few, like the money system are human made. A key characteristic of any system is its stability status, because the instability of any component can ultimately destabilise the whole system. In general, any unstable component of a system will either be cancelled at a cost to the whole or it will proceed to destabilise other components and ultimately the whole system at an increasing (geometric) cost.
Thus, the money system is a human made component of the economy and as you say it has never been formally defined or specified. Instead, we are all operating on an informal intuitive notion that consists of conflating the two mutually exclusive concepts of "measure" and "tradable commodity like object" constituting a misrepresentation. If we want to know what we are doing we need to define and ratify money and its use like we do with all arbitrary human standards. We cannot just haphazardly assume money to be "what it is" as if it were some immutable phenomenon of nature.
I strongly suggest you start by reading this urgent communiqué:
I understand the point you're making, but I'm failing to see 'the simple and effortless' addition or 'Vitamin C' that you're imagining. Part of this is because your proposal (the Vitamin C, I'm presuming) seems to be about formally redefining money, as if money is *supposed* to be formally defined (i.e. as if money is a creature of logic rather than politics), and as if changing our mindset about money results in a radical transformation of the global economy. But even if that's the case, but you don't seem to have any description of why any of our existing institutions would care, or how you'd spread this message, or how it fits into our existing political economy, or why the average person is going to understand all this.
To use your analogy, you might have Vitamin C, but I see no method for administering it. It's like shouting to someone with scurvy 'I have the formula for Vitamin C', but no actual plan for getting it into them, other than serving them a notice of your intent to change the entire mindset of the global economy. In any actual medical system, however, the actual 'cure' involves far more than 'medicine'. Again, to use your point about systems, a medical system with only supplies of Vitamin C and no means to administer them is a fundamentally inoperative system, and fundamentally different to an operative one.
I think your first step should be to translate your urgent communique into language people can actually understand (i.e. not systems engineering and legal language like you're currently using). For example, consider the first sentence you use: "Money/currency unit symbols are not formally defined as required for any determinate application of any mathematical expression in terms of said units to any independent common reality" - I predict that no more than 0.5% of the world's population would understand that sentence on their first reading. That's a problem for you to fix
That part of the money system which uses numbers to denote currency unit values (so, basically all money contracts and all accounts) SHOULD be based on normative logic with a formal definition of the basic unit of measure - as every other unit of measure pertaining to numbers must. It is astonishing that it does not. Changing the system is not about overhauling or rebuilding, but simply modifying our use of money. In this simple, but incredibly, overlooked way, "changing our mindset about money (does,in fact) result in a radical transformation of the global economy". The reluctance of economists and politicians lies in nothing more than embarrassment at the simplicity of this part of our problems. The Emperor is naked!
"..but I'm failing to see 'the simple and effortless' addition or 'Vitamin C' that you're imagining."
The only point being made is that it can take very little to completely transform a system. WRT to money systems once understood, correcting the current money system doesn't require a complete overhaul just correction of the misrepresentation.
The example of scurvy was chosen because the "cure" in many cases comes about by merely administrating Vitamin C alone. The simile is illustrative of course.
The communiqué alerts to the existence of a common misrepresentation most everyone is committing and that destabilises all that assumes its imperatives. Committing a misrepresentation has profound moral and legal consequences no matter how accustomed to committing the offence people are. Correcting the misrepresentation is a requirement for any viable functionality, i.e. it is not an option but required, like an error in logic or reasoning is ultimately intolerable and must be corrected.
The communiqué was put together by several editors of all walks of life both lay and non lay people, while some concepts are unusual for some, all involved were able to fully understand, so it is perfectly understandable just not easy.
Such a serious document has to be expressed unambiguously, requiring the use of certain less familiar but unambiguous terms. While needing more effort it is far far more accessible than for example loan contracts and mortgages that all sorts presumably understand. But more importantly it is understandable because it offers all the required information for falsifiability (Popper), i.e. all that is needed to prove it false or flawed if indeed it is. This cannot be said for most theories that abound.
If there is anything you don't understand don't hesitate in asking us at community(@)moneytransparency(dot)com. If you find an easier way to express what we are saying without loss of generality of meaning, I for one would be very grateful.
Maybe your starting point as to the ‘Altered State Of Monetary Consciousness’ begins with your anthropological awareness that “Pre-capitalist ‘human economies’, by contrast, tend to carry far less of this ‘commodity fetishism’, in that people recognise that economic value lies in people, not things. Human economies like this are associated with ‘social currencies’, ceremonial objects that act to mediate human relations, unblock tensions, facilitate unions..” These social orders did not suffer from the reductionist delusion of the separation of the individual from the group. And their credit systems were WAY MORE than ceremonial objects……and those social credits themselves provided the tools to “mediate human relations, unblock tensions, facilitate unions.”
What is interesting about this “Altered State” is that the MSTA finds this moment of the mistaken notions involved with ‘commodity fetishism’ as the place to which we must focus our attentions. Because correction of this takes us to simple bookkeeping about the activities within these ‘human economies’ and delivers us away from the illiterate consequences of this commodity fetishism you so cogently point to.
You see, if the focus is on this foolish ‘commodity fetish’ and the misguided attempts to use the features of commodities as if they legitimately apply to abstract unit based representation of a ‘human economy’ (and in the end there is no other kind), then the “nervous system" analogy you give to money (which I interpret to mean an information system) can only become a “contributor to any emergent ‘consciousness’ that develops in and around that system” if it first starts with bad information (money has the features of commodities) and then operates in feedback loops related to this.
You wrote: “Money is the nervous system of the global economy, and - like any nervous system - it’s a core contributor to any emergent ‘consciousness’ that develops in and around that system. So, if you feel that maybe the global economy is like a numb, delusional and paranoid wreck walking towards oblivion, it makes sense to consider how we might alter the state of its nervous system.”
Is the economy that way because the ‘consciousness’ about money is delusional and causing the numbness and paranoia? Focus on the feelings is not enough if those feelings are rooted in delusion or the mistaken. The ‘emergent consciousness’, if based in delusion will be unaware of the root of the paranoia, because that is the problem with delusion. But the human perception at some basic level (those same feelings) has the awareness of the impossibility of being able to make the present system work. And this becomes a feedback loop within this nervous system/communication system/information system/the present money system that surely and realistically does feel like “walking towards oblivion.” So, this state of affairs must deeply look into the dynamics of this ‘emergent consciousness’ you point at.
It seems to me that WAY Too Many of the ‘solutions’ in so called ‘modern’ economic models are nothing more than circling attempts to make the misrepresentation of money (commodity features can be legitimately applied to the abstract unit used to represent the interchange of economic value) work.
When a populace has only one frame of reference, and that one is invalid, it cannot even begin to know what is wrong. The point about not having any other frame of reference is critically important, because there is no guarantee that the 'development' of humanity has gotten stuff figured out correctly. Which raises the question: What do we have wrong?
One of those things that we surely have wrong is money. And we have had this wrong since the time we switched from fungible commodities as trade goods to abstract unit based representations of value interchange used in bookkeeping. What we got wrong is that, because we "conflated the two mutually exclusive notions of “measure” and “commodity” - be it either conflating “measure” with (fungible) commodities such as gold or silver or “commodity" with mere annotations of value such as fiat notes" (Marc Gauvin) - we assigned the properties of a commodity to a simple abstract unit! In doing this we messed up our own abilities to have stability in our acCounts and bookkeeping and society as we sought to 'own and protect' the abstract units as though they were fungible commodities, when they were/are but abstract representations of the value contained in the stuff of real value in our interchange!
Through all this time in human history, since before the formation of Nation States, we have been confused about what Liberation through bookkeeping and abstract representation of our own interaction needs in order to work. Because the goods interchanged no longer need an intermediate fungible trade good. What we need is a specification for a 'unit of value' with which to measure/annotate and keep the records about the value contained in those items of genuine value about which we are writing stuff down! Please take a look at this paper. http://www.bibocurrency.com/index.php/downloads-2/19-english-root/learn/271-brief-history-of-money-s-misrepresentation
I celebrate your willingness to challenge the status quo and to ask what we have been getting wrong.
It seems to me, that with regard to money, we are still in a 'pre-Copernican' era thinking that fungible commodity-like money is at the center of our economic world when it cannot possibly be. And so long as we subjugate ourselves to the foolish need to have money retain the attributes of fungible commodities we abandon our own position as the initiator (the center) of economic capacity and give ourselves over to the eventuality of control exhibited by those strong armed protectorates that have developed into the Nation States along with all the corruption that entails.
There is a way out that involves simple monetary literacy. Check this out!!
Thanks PJ. Yeah I actually should have split this piece into two or three parts, because the first part could be separated off and developed into a shorter standalone piece. As it stands, this overall piece is far too long. Maybe I'll develop the first part into a new piece at some point
Came across @brettscott article today and couldn't resist diving into the full read. It's a heavy hitter, but the effort was well worth it! I'm with him on the idea that money's a social construct – if we're not fans of the current setup, why shouldn't we have the power to switch it up? Of course, that begs the question of who 'we' are and what 'we' desire, but let's park that thought for a sec.
Now, Brett, if I'm picking up what you're putting down correctly, it feels like there's a shadow of 'capitalist realism' in your views, similar to the very concept you flag in the article. My takeaway – and I might be off-base here – is that your vision for money's future revolves primarily around its traditional roles: medium of exchange, unit of accounting, and store of value.
It seems like you're imagining a fresh take on money with maybe new rules for entry or a tilt towards equity but otherwise not so much different to today. But let's not forget, the role of money's changing with tech too! I scribbled down some thoughts on how crypto's carving out a niche as the cash of choice for computers, not just us flesh-and-bone types. Could be something in there that sparks your interest.
Hi Swen, really glad you like the article, and thanks for the detailed comment. A couple points
1) I wouldn't solely characterise money as a 'social construct', because that term tends to carry a kind of 'social contract' vibe, which implies that people have made some kind of 'decision' to enter into the construct, but that I don't find that very convincing. Monetary systems are certainly politically constructed, but there's a lot of network effect stuff that transcends individual desire and no straightforward way to 'switch it up'
2) I almost never use the 'functions of money' paradigm you mention. Well, I use the unit of account concept, but never 'store of value' or 'means of exchange'. I also don't believe that those imagined functions are its traditional role: I think that's an after-the-fact narrative that was pasted onto money by economists, rather than an actual description (for an account of this, see https://brettscott.substack.com/p/structure-vs-functions-of-money)
3) I haven't had a chance to read your article in depth, but I'd note that computers are objects owned by people, and that they have no desire to trade in and of themselves, any more than the cup on your table wants to engage in monetary exchange with your set of headphones. It's the people who own those computers that are doing the trading. I do write a lot about crypto though, so you can find more on this site if you want (e.g. https://brettscott.substack.com/p/the-hole-in-bitcoins-heart)
🙏🏼 in the Tumbla ~ keep send swap spend (document)
Exploring early-bird discount payment combined with a swap market for vouchers.
A voucher with Geographic, Redeemability & Time Limits.
As Brett Scott explains, “large-scale systems ‘dissolve’ communities into large formless bodies of people who just see themselves as floating ‘consumers’, while small-scale systems connect people into more holistic closely-knit meshes”.
"... To replace it (the money system) you’d actually have to re-grow our entire economic organism, ....Anybody that’s imagining a wholesale replacement of one monetary system for another, and is not expecting the body to die in the process, is… well... delusional."
This is an assumption not a fact. First what do you mean by "wholesale replacement"? If you are suffering from scurvy several vital systems (connective, circulatory, immune, etc..) cease to function, do you replace them or do you correct them by adding enough of one of the simplest molecules (C6H8O6 aka Vitamin C) known to biochemistry? If you do add vitamin C, a "wholesale replacement" has taken place, i.e. from dysfunctional system A to functional system B. But notice that little was done to achieve such a colossal transformation.
The take home is to know how to define a system, removing one detail completely transforms a system from a functional <=> dysfunctional, stable <=> unstable, passive <=> active. In the case of money systems mainstream or alternative, we need to first determine the problem statement they are to address and only then can we talk about what requirements need to be satisfied e.g. do we need to produce alternatives or will a simple correction of what is already in place be sufficient?
Finally, you need to understand how systems affect other systems they come into contact with, e.g. any passive system cannot coexist in conjunction with an active system unless it is completely isolated and independent.
http://bibocurrency.com/index.php/downloads-2/19-english-root/learn/300-you-have-been-served
I like the fact that you're playing with the metaphor. I guess I doubt whether there's really something 'wrong' with our system: in your scurvy metaphor, there's an existing body, with an existing state of balance, that then gets disrupted by some issue (i.e. it gets sick) that then calls for it to be 'fixed' with the addition of something. In the case of our economic system, I don't think it is in the situation of needing to be 'fixed', because I think it's actually in its *normal state*, and it's normal state is one that's basically numb to, for example, the destruction of the planet. That's not to say there are not sub-systems and so on that can be altered with 'Vitamin C'. Anyway, thanks for the comment - it's something to be reflected on
"I guess I doubt whether there's really something 'wrong' with our system:..."
What system are you referring to, the money system or the economy? The money system is a mere man-made component of the economy that we can and must fully define and specify. "Economy" on the other hand is an undefined and unspecified complex outcome of changing real world parameters coupled with collective human behaviour. The importance of a money system is its inherent properties and systemic effects on human decisions. Those properties are not the result of some mystery of the cosmos yet to be discovered but of the logic and axioms that are chosen. if those axioms are false then ANY conclusion on top is necessarily invalid.
"...in your scurvy metaphor, there's an existing body, with an existing state of balance, that then gets disrupted by some issue (i.e. it gets sick) that then calls for it to be 'fixed' with the addition of something."
The important point I was making was simpler, essentially that from a systems point of view, system A (human body - Vitamin C) is an entirely different system from system B (human body + Vitamin C). That is to say, it is a mistake to conceive of one being a modality of the other. A car without wheels is a lump of steel not a stationary car.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I find it more difficult than you to make this clear separation between the money system and the economy, and I also don't see that the money system has ever been 'fully defined and specified' from the outset. I feel like when you say 'we can and must' fully define it and specify it, you're making a normative statement about how money should be, rather than how it actually is. I also don't see the clear path you that you seem to be seeing from changing the logic and axioms to changing human behaviour. Also, this Vitamin-meets-car metaphor doesn't intuitively resonate: in your first description you talked about a dysfunctional system being replaced with a functional one due to Vitamin C, and then the dysfunctional system being like a lump of steel, but what does this equate to in the monetary system?
I suspect this is some kind of disciplinary difference. You clearly have more of an engineering vibe than me, but I'm interested to read the Bibo papers when I get a chance.
"Systems" are understood as a set of interacting components. If you change the components you change the system, hence the example of scurvy where the absence of a single component (Vitamin C) drastically transforms an operative human body (system A) into an entirely different (inoperative) system B. The point of that analogy was to illustrate how removing a key component transforms a system into an entirely different system and how simple and often effortless that transformation can be reversed without "replacing the whole system".
The economy is a vast indeterminate complex system with a varying set of component systems of variable behaviour and states (stable, unstable, passive, etc,). Of these some are natural systems i.e. depend on the laws of nature and a few, like the money system are human made. A key characteristic of any system is its stability status, because the instability of any component can ultimately destabilise the whole system. In general, any unstable component of a system will either be cancelled at a cost to the whole or it will proceed to destabilise other components and ultimately the whole system at an increasing (geometric) cost.
Thus, the money system is a human made component of the economy and as you say it has never been formally defined or specified. Instead, we are all operating on an informal intuitive notion that consists of conflating the two mutually exclusive concepts of "measure" and "tradable commodity like object" constituting a misrepresentation. If we want to know what we are doing we need to define and ratify money and its use like we do with all arbitrary human standards. We cannot just haphazardly assume money to be "what it is" as if it were some immutable phenomenon of nature.
I strongly suggest you start by reading this urgent communiqué:
http://bibocurrency.com/index.php/downloads-2/19-english-root/learn/300-you-have-been-served
I understand the point you're making, but I'm failing to see 'the simple and effortless' addition or 'Vitamin C' that you're imagining. Part of this is because your proposal (the Vitamin C, I'm presuming) seems to be about formally redefining money, as if money is *supposed* to be formally defined (i.e. as if money is a creature of logic rather than politics), and as if changing our mindset about money results in a radical transformation of the global economy. But even if that's the case, but you don't seem to have any description of why any of our existing institutions would care, or how you'd spread this message, or how it fits into our existing political economy, or why the average person is going to understand all this.
To use your analogy, you might have Vitamin C, but I see no method for administering it. It's like shouting to someone with scurvy 'I have the formula for Vitamin C', but no actual plan for getting it into them, other than serving them a notice of your intent to change the entire mindset of the global economy. In any actual medical system, however, the actual 'cure' involves far more than 'medicine'. Again, to use your point about systems, a medical system with only supplies of Vitamin C and no means to administer them is a fundamentally inoperative system, and fundamentally different to an operative one.
I think your first step should be to translate your urgent communique into language people can actually understand (i.e. not systems engineering and legal language like you're currently using). For example, consider the first sentence you use: "Money/currency unit symbols are not formally defined as required for any determinate application of any mathematical expression in terms of said units to any independent common reality" - I predict that no more than 0.5% of the world's population would understand that sentence on their first reading. That's a problem for you to fix
That part of the money system which uses numbers to denote currency unit values (so, basically all money contracts and all accounts) SHOULD be based on normative logic with a formal definition of the basic unit of measure - as every other unit of measure pertaining to numbers must. It is astonishing that it does not. Changing the system is not about overhauling or rebuilding, but simply modifying our use of money. In this simple, but incredibly, overlooked way, "changing our mindset about money (does,in fact) result in a radical transformation of the global economy". The reluctance of economists and politicians lies in nothing more than embarrassment at the simplicity of this part of our problems. The Emperor is naked!
"..but I'm failing to see 'the simple and effortless' addition or 'Vitamin C' that you're imagining."
The only point being made is that it can take very little to completely transform a system. WRT to money systems once understood, correcting the current money system doesn't require a complete overhaul just correction of the misrepresentation.
The example of scurvy was chosen because the "cure" in many cases comes about by merely administrating Vitamin C alone. The simile is illustrative of course.
The communiqué alerts to the existence of a common misrepresentation most everyone is committing and that destabilises all that assumes its imperatives. Committing a misrepresentation has profound moral and legal consequences no matter how accustomed to committing the offence people are. Correcting the misrepresentation is a requirement for any viable functionality, i.e. it is not an option but required, like an error in logic or reasoning is ultimately intolerable and must be corrected.
The communiqué was put together by several editors of all walks of life both lay and non lay people, while some concepts are unusual for some, all involved were able to fully understand, so it is perfectly understandable just not easy.
Such a serious document has to be expressed unambiguously, requiring the use of certain less familiar but unambiguous terms. While needing more effort it is far far more accessible than for example loan contracts and mortgages that all sorts presumably understand. But more importantly it is understandable because it offers all the required information for falsifiability (Popper), i.e. all that is needed to prove it false or flawed if indeed it is. This cannot be said for most theories that abound.
If there is anything you don't understand don't hesitate in asking us at community(@)moneytransparency(dot)com. If you find an easier way to express what we are saying without loss of generality of meaning, I for one would be very grateful.
Maybe your starting point as to the ‘Altered State Of Monetary Consciousness’ begins with your anthropological awareness that “Pre-capitalist ‘human economies’, by contrast, tend to carry far less of this ‘commodity fetishism’, in that people recognise that economic value lies in people, not things. Human economies like this are associated with ‘social currencies’, ceremonial objects that act to mediate human relations, unblock tensions, facilitate unions..” These social orders did not suffer from the reductionist delusion of the separation of the individual from the group. And their credit systems were WAY MORE than ceremonial objects……and those social credits themselves provided the tools to “mediate human relations, unblock tensions, facilitate unions.”
What is interesting about this “Altered State” is that the MSTA finds this moment of the mistaken notions involved with ‘commodity fetishism’ as the place to which we must focus our attentions. Because correction of this takes us to simple bookkeeping about the activities within these ‘human economies’ and delivers us away from the illiterate consequences of this commodity fetishism you so cogently point to.
You see, if the focus is on this foolish ‘commodity fetish’ and the misguided attempts to use the features of commodities as if they legitimately apply to abstract unit based representation of a ‘human economy’ (and in the end there is no other kind), then the “nervous system" analogy you give to money (which I interpret to mean an information system) can only become a “contributor to any emergent ‘consciousness’ that develops in and around that system” if it first starts with bad information (money has the features of commodities) and then operates in feedback loops related to this.
You wrote: “Money is the nervous system of the global economy, and - like any nervous system - it’s a core contributor to any emergent ‘consciousness’ that develops in and around that system. So, if you feel that maybe the global economy is like a numb, delusional and paranoid wreck walking towards oblivion, it makes sense to consider how we might alter the state of its nervous system.”
Is the economy that way because the ‘consciousness’ about money is delusional and causing the numbness and paranoia? Focus on the feelings is not enough if those feelings are rooted in delusion or the mistaken. The ‘emergent consciousness’, if based in delusion will be unaware of the root of the paranoia, because that is the problem with delusion. But the human perception at some basic level (those same feelings) has the awareness of the impossibility of being able to make the present system work. And this becomes a feedback loop within this nervous system/communication system/information system/the present money system that surely and realistically does feel like “walking towards oblivion.” So, this state of affairs must deeply look into the dynamics of this ‘emergent consciousness’ you point at.
It seems to me that WAY Too Many of the ‘solutions’ in so called ‘modern’ economic models are nothing more than circling attempts to make the misrepresentation of money (commodity features can be legitimately applied to the abstract unit used to represent the interchange of economic value) work.
When a populace has only one frame of reference, and that one is invalid, it cannot even begin to know what is wrong. The point about not having any other frame of reference is critically important, because there is no guarantee that the 'development' of humanity has gotten stuff figured out correctly. Which raises the question: What do we have wrong?
One of those things that we surely have wrong is money. And we have had this wrong since the time we switched from fungible commodities as trade goods to abstract unit based representations of value interchange used in bookkeeping. What we got wrong is that, because we "conflated the two mutually exclusive notions of “measure” and “commodity” - be it either conflating “measure” with (fungible) commodities such as gold or silver or “commodity" with mere annotations of value such as fiat notes" (Marc Gauvin) - we assigned the properties of a commodity to a simple abstract unit! In doing this we messed up our own abilities to have stability in our acCounts and bookkeeping and society as we sought to 'own and protect' the abstract units as though they were fungible commodities, when they were/are but abstract representations of the value contained in the stuff of real value in our interchange!
Through all this time in human history, since before the formation of Nation States, we have been confused about what Liberation through bookkeeping and abstract representation of our own interaction needs in order to work. Because the goods interchanged no longer need an intermediate fungible trade good. What we need is a specification for a 'unit of value' with which to measure/annotate and keep the records about the value contained in those items of genuine value about which we are writing stuff down! Please take a look at this paper. http://www.bibocurrency.com/index.php/downloads-2/19-english-root/learn/271-brief-history-of-money-s-misrepresentation
I celebrate your willingness to challenge the status quo and to ask what we have been getting wrong.
It seems to me, that with regard to money, we are still in a 'pre-Copernican' era thinking that fungible commodity-like money is at the center of our economic world when it cannot possibly be. And so long as we subjugate ourselves to the foolish need to have money retain the attributes of fungible commodities we abandon our own position as the initiator (the center) of economic capacity and give ourselves over to the eventuality of control exhibited by those strong armed protectorates that have developed into the Nation States along with all the corruption that entails.
There is a way out that involves simple monetary literacy. Check this out!!
http://www.bibocurrency.com/index.php/downloads-2/19-english-root/learn/300-you-have-been-served
The first part of this essay is absolutely brilliant, Brett. Should be required reading for anyone in economic study.
Thanks PJ. Yeah I actually should have split this piece into two or three parts, because the first part could be separated off and developed into a shorter standalone piece. As it stands, this overall piece is far too long. Maybe I'll develop the first part into a new piece at some point
Yeah, if you do it would be something I share with people as an econ 101 type piece.
Came across @brettscott article today and couldn't resist diving into the full read. It's a heavy hitter, but the effort was well worth it! I'm with him on the idea that money's a social construct – if we're not fans of the current setup, why shouldn't we have the power to switch it up? Of course, that begs the question of who 'we' are and what 'we' desire, but let's park that thought for a sec.
Now, Brett, if I'm picking up what you're putting down correctly, it feels like there's a shadow of 'capitalist realism' in your views, similar to the very concept you flag in the article. My takeaway – and I might be off-base here – is that your vision for money's future revolves primarily around its traditional roles: medium of exchange, unit of accounting, and store of value.
It seems like you're imagining a fresh take on money with maybe new rules for entry or a tilt towards equity but otherwise not so much different to today. But let's not forget, the role of money's changing with tech too! I scribbled down some thoughts on how crypto's carving out a niche as the cash of choice for computers, not just us flesh-and-bone types. Could be something in there that sparks your interest.
Check it out here https://open.substack.com/pub/swenldn/p/crypto-is-money-not-for-humans-but?r=1rk8o9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web I hope you will find it useful #DigitalCash #mydigitaltruth
Hi Swen, really glad you like the article, and thanks for the detailed comment. A couple points
1) I wouldn't solely characterise money as a 'social construct', because that term tends to carry a kind of 'social contract' vibe, which implies that people have made some kind of 'decision' to enter into the construct, but that I don't find that very convincing. Monetary systems are certainly politically constructed, but there's a lot of network effect stuff that transcends individual desire and no straightforward way to 'switch it up'
2) I almost never use the 'functions of money' paradigm you mention. Well, I use the unit of account concept, but never 'store of value' or 'means of exchange'. I also don't believe that those imagined functions are its traditional role: I think that's an after-the-fact narrative that was pasted onto money by economists, rather than an actual description (for an account of this, see https://brettscott.substack.com/p/structure-vs-functions-of-money)
3) I haven't had a chance to read your article in depth, but I'd note that computers are objects owned by people, and that they have no desire to trade in and of themselves, any more than the cup on your table wants to engage in monetary exchange with your set of headphones. It's the people who own those computers that are doing the trading. I do write a lot about crypto though, so you can find more on this site if you want (e.g. https://brettscott.substack.com/p/the-hole-in-bitcoins-heart)
I quote Brett Scott @Suitpossum
🙏🏼 in the Tumbla ~ keep send swap spend (document)
Exploring early-bird discount payment combined with a swap market for vouchers.
A voucher with Geographic, Redeemability & Time Limits.
As Brett Scott explains, “large-scale systems ‘dissolve’ communities into large formless bodies of people who just see themselves as floating ‘consumers’, while small-scale systems connect people into more holistic closely-knit meshes”.
https://bit.ly/tumbla-swap-voucher
Thanks Jason - Tumbla looks really interesting