Comments on: Argument: why money can’t be a commodity

By: Thanasis

Thanasis — Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:02:58 +0000

What is most funny is that “hard-money”, Austrian-School, commodity-money advocates have implicitly accepted the abstract nature of money as a legal institution. They just don’t know it!

See http://moneyingreece.org/ron-paul-money-is-a-legal-institution-and-not-a-commidity
for Ron Paul’s unknowing (and epic, in my view) admission.

By: paul

paul — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 01:41:47 +0000

Money should not “store” any value, they have no value by definition. Once we accept that we realize why usury is atrocious, and why you should be able to just get money when you need them for free at any time, and as much as you need it (provided you are able to repay) – in this case the idea of saving money becomes obsolete.
But that will lead us straight to class less society, which is something current “elite” would never want – they want you to work for them all your life, paying usury fees, enriching them and supporting their “elite” status.

By: Joseph Shirk

Joseph Shirk — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:48:01 +0000

Current president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, Narayana R. Kocherlakota concludes in his seminal work, Money is Memory:

- money itself is useless, monetary allocations are merely large interlocking networks of gifts. - any technological advantages offered by money are also offered by an alternative technology: memory... memory may technologically dominate money. - "Why does money exist?" Often, economists answer this question by saying that money is a store of value, money is a medium of exchange, and/or money is a unit of account... - the only thing that money adds to society is a (limited) ability to keep track of the past. money may only be in imperfect substitute for high quality information storage and access.

I cite ample proof that money is not a "store of value" in The Psycho-Linguistics of Sustainable Economy

By: Marc Gauvin

Marc Gauvin — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:53:24 +0000

Matthew wrote:

“Storage of value media ideally will increase in value over time, and hence should be backed by investments. Modern money increases in value over time because of interest, and is backed by the ability of the government to bail out the banks.”

This statement is really wrong and very confused.

1) Assuming you are talking of money as a “Storage of value media”, such a proposition is simply impossible. Anyone who claims otherwise has to provide the math to support their assertion. This statement confused record of value with “store” of value. The former a representation the latter an object of value. A worker creating a product “stores” his value in that product, money may quantify and represent that value but never does have value “stored” in it.

2) Money does not increase in value through interest. Interest only inflates costs, reducing the ratio of goods to money. What money redeems in real value is thus reduced.

3) Money is not backed by the government bailing out the banks, it is backed by all collateral pledged to obtain money in loans, which includes the ability for the state to tax the people to service public debt.

By: Marc Gauvin

Marc Gauvin — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:03:47 +0000

Jehu, Matthew,

I just saw your posts now a little late.

The problem is not “immunity to ideas” it is that money cannot logically be both a measure a store of value nor a medium of exchange see this:

http://bibocurrency.com/index.php/downloads-2/19-english-root/learn/196-money-commodity-or-measure

The store of value idea and medium of exchange are nothing more than allegories of the function of measure which is the only plausible option. Think about it, in order to increment your money balance you must lose value and when you recuperate that value you lose balance at no time is any value being stored but rather money only acts a record of what you don’t have while you don’t have it, that hardly can be considered a a store of value, right? Likewise with the notion of money being a medium, it isn’t because money is not physically necessary for trade, but as a record (measure) of value it can perform an auxiliary role.

By: Susmita

Susmita — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 14:24:14 +0000

We definitely need to rethink and redesign money so it serves the people and planet in a wholesome way for a sustainable future. http://conscious-capitalism.blogspot.com

By: Jehu

Jehu — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:37:00 +0000

“Step 1. Create a belief system whereby people accept that the value of goods and services, can be “carried” in units of an arbitrary object…”

Ha! Well, obviously you are immune to this belief system, so everyone else on the planet must just be stupid. 🙂

By: Matthew Slater

Matthew Slater — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:59:09 +0000

Your definition of money assumes that money is only a medium of exchange. In which case you are right, money need only be an accounting unit, with no intrinsic, or commodity value.
However modern money also serves an important function as a store of value. Storage of value media ideally will increase in value over time, and hence should be backed by investments. Modern money increases in value over time because of interest, and is backed by the ability of the government to bail out the banks.
Historically these functions are usually kept separate, but money is particularly exploitative because, as a commodity, it forces us to pay interest on our units of account. This is, of course, impossible!