RE: What Is Money?
April 4, 2010 at 5:16 am
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2010 at 5:24 am by Violet.)
Ugh... time to form a ton of rebuttals... (Edit: It should be noted that he was VERY open-ended with his arguments, and that they can be interpreted in a number of ways. As such, i may have misinterpreted what he meant on occasion... and i dearly hope for him that I did. I think he's entirely missed the point of what money is by confusing it with how we use it... and even that is often not necessarily true or blatantly wrong).
Actually, the Amazing Atheist is correct in that value is made by people. Paper money is exactly that: an paper item granted value by a general society (though not necessarily all) for the purpose of trading it.
Money is one thing only: a thing which has value to a certain person, which then serves as payment for another thing valued. The milkman doesn't want any more milk, he has little value in your milk. The needy man on the street desperately wants your milk. He holds much value to it. Value is entirely subjective... if one person thinks a fair exchange is 100 good-sized, already-filleted Sockeye Salmon for Mass Effect 2: then they do. If a person finds a single rock to be more valuable than a large restaurant chain... then they do. One must remember that money is not coin-currency alone (henceforth simplified to 'currency').
A standardized currency needs be one thing only: standardized. It may be the most bizarre system worked up (eg, trading buildings or their services for other buildings or other services)... or it could be entirely digitalized (Bah! Republic credits count for nothing out here.)... or it could be a sleek single currency system (Please sir, can I have 10,000 pennies?)... or it may be done in strata (100 A for a B, 100 B for a C, 100 C for a D)... or it may be done in a way entirely unlisted (Like you get things free if you have ____ rank).
1a, Transportable: A thing of value DOES NOT need to be transportable. Example being buildings. So far as standardized currency goes, systems can easily work where one receives vouchers from others for doing services for them, and these do not even necessarily have to be given to people. Even systems like our credit card system don't need transportable money... they just organize the money into a different group depending on what it was used for. I disagree entirely with the simplistic and narrow notion that standardized currency applies only to a coin/paper money system. So far as coin and paper money systems go, even they do not necessarily have to be transported. It all depends on which system is in place as to wether transportation is required or not.
1b, Divisible: Not at all necessary. A standardized currency in no way states that the trades will be fair.
1c, High Market Value: Entirely subjective, as noted before. Invalid, and like 1b: unnecessary in it's being a standardized currency.
1d, Recognizable: Not necessarily. A foreigner or blind man or hermit may have absolutely no fucking clue what it is they're looking at (so to speak)... that doesn't stop it from having value. "What is that fucking thing!?", says the islander of the chicken. He may pay for it purely out of interest and/or of what you've told him about it. Recognizability certainly does help in most cases though. But again it isn't vital for all systems to work, however efficient.
1e, Resistant to Counterfeiting: Sure it helps... but this is (again) rather unnecessary so far as the functioning of the system goes. That some may want to capitalize on how easily reproducible the money is... is just capitalism. After the market fucks itself and everyone aboard, it should be a decent system (albeit one with many fuckings over of itself). With some forms of money (say chickens)... the counterfeits would likely be just as valuable as the real things themselves... so what point there would be in doing so is completely unknown to me. It isn't essential to many systems that they be uncounterfeitable... however much being so may help the market
2, unit of account: Describes a specific type of standardized currency. This type of currency is rather unstable over time, with inflation being one of the most fundamental problems with it. It can often become utterly meaningless (so far as 'value' is concerned). This is what he serves up that you defend as 'ftw'? Fuck that much? Anyway, onto this particular currency.
2a, Divisible: No actually... it does not need to be divisible. Single-coin currencies work perhaps just as well in this system under some iterations (credits) as they do in multi-coin currencies (such as America's penny-nickel-dime-quarter-dollar-5$-10$-etc). So again, it does not need to be divisible.
2b, Fungible: I agree 100% with him here... this particular system absolutely requires the currency be fungible.
2c, Countable: Also true. I don't know how Unit of Account could would without being countable... considering that accounting is pretty much mostly just counting in the first place
3, store of value: Only things with a 'POV' can create value... rocks don't create value, gold doesn't, fantasy dragons don't, not even my strawberry poptarts do. Should 'money' be any different in this respect? Again, we give things value. I'd think most of us value money, even if only in relation to other money. The starving man given 1000$ will soon not be starving... he probably values those coins like they are an obsession, hoarding them, keeping his hands close to them, resting unwell. The billionaire given the same thing might say "keep your money" or "oooookie????" or in many other ways be unimpressed by the paltry sum. I'd say money (paper, coin, credit, etc. things that you normally think of with 'money') creates value in the same ways a sword, cow, or spacefaring vessel create value... and that is all in our heads! They don't create the value... we do in reaction to our subjective interpretation of what they are.
Moving on: 3a, savable: The money does not have to be savable. If money in a system is food, then it really only has to be edible. And edible things don't do well on the whole "saving" thing, unless they are Red Bull, which is disgusting!
3b, storable: Depends... is holding the weapon in your hands 'storing' it there? If it is, then I agree that things must be storable (fuck, everything is). If it was meant more along the lines of "stash the sword in a safe, and when the demons come, run over and get it out of the safe (while you're getting butt-raped by satan)": no, it isn't necessary. Is is a common, efficient, and fairly simply way for the system to work? Yes. Does it have to be done this way? No, note the above 'holding it in hands', 'spend it fast' kinda thing.
3c, retrievable: Not necessarily. They could simply be credits, with the cost of your purchase linked to the bank, which then moves that amount to the person you purchased from. Unless you call that 'retrieving', then no, it isn't a vital part of this.
3d, Valuable Upon Retrieval. Banking crisis familiar to you? No/yes? How about inflation? Yes? Good good. So you should already understand why this 'point' is stupid. Like... fucking stupid.
4: Ugh... evidently he isn't aware that it isn't just paper that can be traded for services. He says "finally" on this one, and there's another 6 minutes and 30 seconds left of this? I'm calling it. I've got enough of a response already. Awaiting your rebuttal, Adrian. Please tell me you'll give better argument (or at least less 'open-ended' ones) that this guy.
Actually, the Amazing Atheist is correct in that value is made by people. Paper money is exactly that: an paper item granted value by a general society (though not necessarily all) for the purpose of trading it.
Money is one thing only: a thing which has value to a certain person, which then serves as payment for another thing valued. The milkman doesn't want any more milk, he has little value in your milk. The needy man on the street desperately wants your milk. He holds much value to it. Value is entirely subjective... if one person thinks a fair exchange is 100 good-sized, already-filleted Sockeye Salmon for Mass Effect 2: then they do. If a person finds a single rock to be more valuable than a large restaurant chain... then they do. One must remember that money is not coin-currency alone (henceforth simplified to 'currency').
A standardized currency needs be one thing only: standardized. It may be the most bizarre system worked up (eg, trading buildings or their services for other buildings or other services)... or it could be entirely digitalized (Bah! Republic credits count for nothing out here.)... or it could be a sleek single currency system (Please sir, can I have 10,000 pennies?)... or it may be done in strata (100 A for a B, 100 B for a C, 100 C for a D)... or it may be done in a way entirely unlisted (Like you get things free if you have ____ rank).
1a, Transportable: A thing of value DOES NOT need to be transportable. Example being buildings. So far as standardized currency goes, systems can easily work where one receives vouchers from others for doing services for them, and these do not even necessarily have to be given to people. Even systems like our credit card system don't need transportable money... they just organize the money into a different group depending on what it was used for. I disagree entirely with the simplistic and narrow notion that standardized currency applies only to a coin/paper money system. So far as coin and paper money systems go, even they do not necessarily have to be transported. It all depends on which system is in place as to wether transportation is required or not.
1b, Divisible: Not at all necessary. A standardized currency in no way states that the trades will be fair.
1c, High Market Value: Entirely subjective, as noted before. Invalid, and like 1b: unnecessary in it's being a standardized currency.
1d, Recognizable: Not necessarily. A foreigner or blind man or hermit may have absolutely no fucking clue what it is they're looking at (so to speak)... that doesn't stop it from having value. "What is that fucking thing!?", says the islander of the chicken. He may pay for it purely out of interest and/or of what you've told him about it. Recognizability certainly does help in most cases though. But again it isn't vital for all systems to work, however efficient.
1e, Resistant to Counterfeiting: Sure it helps... but this is (again) rather unnecessary so far as the functioning of the system goes. That some may want to capitalize on how easily reproducible the money is... is just capitalism. After the market fucks itself and everyone aboard, it should be a decent system (albeit one with many fuckings over of itself). With some forms of money (say chickens)... the counterfeits would likely be just as valuable as the real things themselves... so what point there would be in doing so is completely unknown to me. It isn't essential to many systems that they be uncounterfeitable... however much being so may help the market
2, unit of account: Describes a specific type of standardized currency. This type of currency is rather unstable over time, with inflation being one of the most fundamental problems with it. It can often become utterly meaningless (so far as 'value' is concerned). This is what he serves up that you defend as 'ftw'? Fuck that much? Anyway, onto this particular currency.
2a, Divisible: No actually... it does not need to be divisible. Single-coin currencies work perhaps just as well in this system under some iterations (credits) as they do in multi-coin currencies (such as America's penny-nickel-dime-quarter-dollar-5$-10$-etc). So again, it does not need to be divisible.
2b, Fungible: I agree 100% with him here... this particular system absolutely requires the currency be fungible.
2c, Countable: Also true. I don't know how Unit of Account could would without being countable... considering that accounting is pretty much mostly just counting in the first place
3, store of value: Only things with a 'POV' can create value... rocks don't create value, gold doesn't, fantasy dragons don't, not even my strawberry poptarts do. Should 'money' be any different in this respect? Again, we give things value. I'd think most of us value money, even if only in relation to other money. The starving man given 1000$ will soon not be starving... he probably values those coins like they are an obsession, hoarding them, keeping his hands close to them, resting unwell. The billionaire given the same thing might say "keep your money" or "oooookie????" or in many other ways be unimpressed by the paltry sum. I'd say money (paper, coin, credit, etc. things that you normally think of with 'money') creates value in the same ways a sword, cow, or spacefaring vessel create value... and that is all in our heads! They don't create the value... we do in reaction to our subjective interpretation of what they are.
Moving on: 3a, savable: The money does not have to be savable. If money in a system is food, then it really only has to be edible. And edible things don't do well on the whole "saving" thing, unless they are Red Bull, which is disgusting!
3b, storable: Depends... is holding the weapon in your hands 'storing' it there? If it is, then I agree that things must be storable (fuck, everything is). If it was meant more along the lines of "stash the sword in a safe, and when the demons come, run over and get it out of the safe (while you're getting butt-raped by satan)": no, it isn't necessary. Is is a common, efficient, and fairly simply way for the system to work? Yes. Does it have to be done this way? No, note the above 'holding it in hands', 'spend it fast' kinda thing.
3c, retrievable: Not necessarily. They could simply be credits, with the cost of your purchase linked to the bank, which then moves that amount to the person you purchased from. Unless you call that 'retrieving', then no, it isn't a vital part of this.
3d, Valuable Upon Retrieval. Banking crisis familiar to you? No/yes? How about inflation? Yes? Good good. So you should already understand why this 'point' is stupid. Like... fucking stupid.
4: Ugh... evidently he isn't aware that it isn't just paper that can be traded for services. He says "finally" on this one, and there's another 6 minutes and 30 seconds left of this? I'm calling it. I've got enough of a response already. Awaiting your rebuttal, Adrian. Please tell me you'll give better argument (or at least less 'open-ended' ones) that this guy.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
