What is money?

Originally posted by michaelbrux
Money is a version of my time.

the real question is what is Time.

but no one will ask this question or answer it; Not even the people at CERN.

they'll come up with a different question and answer and live happily ever after.

You're in Chicago, right? Chicagoans may not have an answer for what time is, but they've set a value on its worth. Its called the Chicago Time Dollar, or Chicago Time Exchange.

Changing the world, one hour at a time

The Chicago Time Exchange is a diverse group of people (both Spanish and English speaking) working together to build community, help each other out, and change the world, one hour at a time.

chicago.timebanks.org...

reply to post by frazzle


its the case in all places.

Money is a version of Time...I'd imagine it to be a second derivative.

Gold is the first derivative of Time.

did you take deferential/integral calculus?

perhaps a partial deferential...either way...money is definitely a type of time.

the men that defined money as time are Nobel Prize Winners...Fischer Black, Myron Scholes...Merton. University of Chicago...and the global derivatives market all agree...money is Time.

I suppose the notion that money is Time...seems like a joke.

but consider what one uses money for...food, rent, transportation, communications. Men use it to attract women...

all of those things extend the time we have on this Earth.

think hard before you respond.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by frazzle

 

its the case in all places.

Money is a version of Time...I'd imagine it to be a second derivative.

Gold is the first derivative of Time.

did you take deferential/integral calculus?

perhaps a partial deferential...either way...money is definitely a type of time.

the men that defined money as time are Nobel Prize Winners...Fischer Black, Myron Scholes...Merton. University of Chicago...and the global derivatives market all agree...money is Time.

edit on 7-7-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)

Of course time equals money, although various people will differ on how much of one is equal to the other and in most cases the kind of money you're talking about can change the differential. For instance, many people will offer a discount for cash as opposed to a check or credit card.

Alternate currency creates no interest in its creation so it actually has a higher trading value than debt money.

reply to post by frazzle


but now your question is answered.

Money is Time.

and in either case...people lacking them will do just about anything for more of both.

but the places they are available to be acquired are quickly disappearing if not all together absent.

ultimately...the only man left will be the one with all the Time in the World...and whoever he sees fit to continue living.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by frazzle

 

but now your question is answered.

Money is Time.

and in either case...people lacking them will do just about anything for more of both.

but the places they are available to be acquired are quickly disappearing if not all together absent.

ultimately...the only man left will be the one with all the Time in the World...and whoever he sees fit to continue living.

Why are the places they are or rather were available disappearing? I suppose there aren't enough people who understand the value. I've run into many people who think alternate currencies must be illegal because they aren't "from the government", even though dollar bills in their pockets aren't from the government either, but a private for profit banking cartel.

Me? I'm running out of time almost faster than I'm running out of money so I probably won't be in the competition for the only one left with any of either. Works for me.

reply to post by frazzle


well, I got plenty of Time and manage it pretty well. Money goes up and down over time; wartime tends to hit everyone's money pretty hard.

but, i'll be around far longer than most.

but Money...in an answer to your question...is Time.

preserve your Time, and the derivative, Money, will once again makes its appearance...just don't screw it up and never trade your time for it.

reply to post by michaelbrux

preserve your Time, and the derivative, Money, will once again makes its appearance...just don't screw it up and never trade your time for it.

That's another difference between US dollars and alternative currencies. With the former, the more times money changes hands the faster it loses value (interest, fees, being outsourced to international banks, etc) as opposed to local currencies where the more often they are exchanged, the more they add to the economic vitality of the community.

Saving US dollars makes no sense at all as they continuously lose purchasing power.

reply to post by frazzle


it would seem that all money is Time...regardless of the nation-state that issued it.

maybe some nations are better at trading their currency, contributing to the illusion that one currency is inherently superior than the other...

perhaps, the currency dealers make a point of making one currency appear superior to another so as to accomplish their own selfish goals.

volatility, or more accurately, uncertainty, plays a major role in both how one perceives the value of money and the real value of money...dealers, traders and investors in currency are experts in managing uncertainty...

I worked at the largest SWAPs dealer on earth...i know they know more than everyone else. sure, everyone once in a while, i'd get a call from corporate client, like Coca-Cola, complaining about our practices...but they were no match for the banks.

but your operations probably aren't as extensive as Coke...so it should be simple for you to navigate the jungle.

reply to post by michaelbrux


I'm not looking to navigate any jungles, rather to make life easier by injecting a little clarity and logic into the topic of currency. Obviously its not taking and I didn't really expect that it would, but the thought is now out there and I can't do more than that at this point.

Thinking in terms of market shares and stock prices and fed reserve instruments and mortgage credit default swaps and derivatives confuses the most highly paid economists so I wouldn't give two hoots what Coca cola has to complain about, or the banks. They all colluded to put the nation into this predicament and they will not be capable of rescuing themselves or anyone else because its a game played with fractional bank monopoly money.

The fact is that since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, the dollar has lost 97% of its previous value. Shoot, I can remember when a bottle of coke cost ten cents. Does that give you any indication of money's straight down volatility?

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by michaelbrux

 

I'm not looking to navigate any jungles, rather to make life easier by injecting a little clarity and logic into the topic of currency. Obviously its not taking and I didn't really expect that it would, but the thought is now out there and I can't do more than that at this point.

Thinking in terms of market shares and stock prices and fed reserve instruments and mortgage credit default swaps and derivatives confuses the most highly paid economists so I wouldn't give two hoots what Coca cola has to complain about, or the banks. They all colluded to put the nation into this predicament and they will not be capable of rescuing themselves or anyone else because its a game played with fractional bank monopoly money.

The fact is that since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, the dollar has lost 97% of its previous value. Shoot, I can remember when a bottle of coke cost ten cents. Does that give you any indication of money's straight down volatility?

don't you think if they were smart enough to put themselves into this situation, they are smart enough to get themselves out?

there is no predicament for them, but only for yourself and people like you.

the money comes from someone, something...that has all the Time in the World; or were you not reading what I wrote to you?

and for the record Coke is as cheap today as it ever was...i don't care if its Pepsi, or RC or generic...its Coke!!

believe what you will.

some of us will live forever and all during that time will have beautiful women as lovers and wives and children who are smart...

Originally posted by michaelbrux

don't you think if they were smart enough to put themselves into this situation, they are smart enough to get themselves out?

I think they think they're smart enough to get out but that remains to be seen. A few hanged and headless leaders from the past prove people who think they're smarter than anybody else don't always manage to get out in time.

there is no predicament for them, but only for yourself and people like you.

But not for you because you wil live forever, oodles of money will flow from "somewhere" and the women will all be young and beautiful for eternity.

If someone told me I'd have to live forever I'd take it as a personal threat. Beam me up.

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by michaelbrux

don't you think if they were smart enough to put themselves into this situation, they are smart enough to get themselves out?

I think they think they're smart enough to get out but that remains to be seen. A few hanged and headless leaders from the past prove people who think they're smarter than anybody else don't always manage to get out in time.

there is no predicament for them, but only for yourself and people like you.

But not for you because you wil live forever, oodles of money will flow from "somewhere" and the women will all be young and beautiful for eternity.

If someone told me I'd have to live forever I'd take it as a personal threat. Beam me up.

you'd be amazed at how average you can be to live forever.

if you saw the women I deal with...you'd probably become very angry, very fast. my sons would cause a heart attack.

but hey, i know what money is and you guys aren't trying to hear it...so, go ahead and believe what you will.

i'm so smart, my intelligence will probably spill over into your world anyway, so I don't have to feel bad. you'll benefit from my knowledge even if you shouldn't.

reply to post by jonnywhite

A star for your first post in the thread, because almost all of what you have written is wise and true. You have given us an insightful analysis of the consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise snappily stated as 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'.

Your only error, unfortunately, is the central premise of your post:

Energy, something we require to live, is in essence money. And if you don't have it, you die.

Energy certainly can and has been used as money. Food and fuel are often used as currency under conditions of extreme social stress, such as wars, famines and revolutions. But the OP question is different; the question is, What is money? And the answer certainly isn't 'energy'. How much energy does your donation to the Church of Scientology buy you? How much did you pay for the energy that went into your bottle of Issey Miyake Pour Homme? It wasn't the energy you paid for, mostly, but something entirely different.

Money is a shapeshifter, so Protean in form and labile in action that it refuses to be corralled by any simple definition. The economists' definitions, like 'store of value' and 'agreed medium of exchange', only cover its mechanical functions and do not even hint at its wider attributes and potentials. Just look, for example, at what money does to people who don't have enough of it, or who have too much of it – two equally terrifying fates. Look at what it can do to nations and the relations between them. Look how it changes societies, how it makes and shapes history. Money is far more than mere currency.

I have to say the OP is not very helpful on the question. First he or she gives us a story about inflation, then one about deflation, and finally shows that he or she does not really understand money by nominating the abolition of independent central banks or of interest (I'm not exactly sure which) as a cure for what ails the modern economic system. Neither of these shifts, nor any of the hundreds of others dreamt up by economists and cranks, will serve as a permanent fix. All such solutions are inevitably superseded by the problems they themselves create.

Actually, the misunderstanding is really of human nature itself, with which the nature of money is inextricably bound up. The interesting thing about money is that in the end it always does what it likes – it always gets its way in the end. Man proposes, Money disposes.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Energy certainly can and has been used as money. Food and fuel are often used as currency under conditions of extreme social stress, such as wars, famines and revolutions. But the OP question is different; the question is, What is money? And the answer certainly isn't 'energy'. How much energy does your donation to the Church of Scientology buy you? How much did you pay for the energy that went into your bottle of Issey Miyake Pour Homme? It wasn't the energy you paid for, mostly, but something entirely different.

Perhaps you have misconstrued what the word energy represents in this context. It is not what happens when you flip a switch and the light comes on or what the power companies produce, it refers specifically to human energy expended ~ IOW, whatever you put your own physical or mental energy into that creates something of value to yourself and others.

Nowhere does a locally created currency represent a store of value as its main function is to build an economy by changing hands and moving goods and services as rapidly as possible, so it does serve as an agreed upon medium of exchange on whatever you and others place value.

The interesting part of your response is "what money does to people who don't have enough". That is the exact purpose of an alternative currency, it adds to the economy and puts buying power into the hands of those who need it rather than moving what we currently think of as money (which must be borrowed ~ with good credit) into hands that already have plenty of it.

I do agree that money is far more than mere currency, it also represents personal wealth, liberty and privacy.

I have to say the OP is not very helpful on the question. First he or she gives us a story about inflation, then one about deflation, and finally shows that he or she does not really understand money by nominating the abolition of independent central banks or of interest (I'm not exactly sure which) as a cure for what ails the modern economic system. Neither of these shifts, nor any of the hundreds of others dreamt up by economists and cranks, will serve as a permanent fix. All such solutions are inevitably superseded by the problems they themselves create.

The stories ares not about inflation vs deflation, the examples given show what happens with a currency that is based on production and consumption and controlled by the people, versus a centrally controlled banking system that controls both production and consumption, as well as circulation. In an economy with free based currency, which is earned rather than borrowed, the people trading with it determine everything.

reply to post by frazzle

Perhaps you have misconstrued what the word energy represents in this context. It is not what happens when you flip a switch and the light comes on or what the power companies produce, it refers specifically to human energy expended.

That is simply Marx's 'labour theory of value', which he outlines in the early chapters of Das Kapital. As an economic proposition, it has long been discredited. Markets do not assign value to a good based on the labour put into it but according to the laws of supply and demand.

Anyway, jonnywhite did not mean what you think he meant. He was talking specifically about physical energy. It is actually a far more sophisticated take on money than Marx's naively idealistic one.

Nowhere does a locally created currency represent a store of value as its main function is to build an economy by changing hands and moving goods and services as rapidly as possible, so it does serve as an agreed upon medium of exchange on whatever you and others place value.

No, that is what you wish it would do. You imagine money can be tamed and brought under human control. It can't – at any rate, not for long.

The stories ares not about inflation vs deflation, the examples given show what happens with a currency that is based on production and consumption and controlled by the people, versus a centrally controlled banking system that controls both production and consumption, as well as circulation. In an economy with free based currency, which is earned rather than borrowed, the people trading with it determine everything.

Wish-fulfilment economics never works. If economic theories teach us nothing else, they teach us that.

The interesting part of your response is "what money does to people who don't have enough".

And what about the things it does to the people who have too much of it?

No, I'm afraid you have missed the whole point of my post. Every peasant believes that usury is the root of all evil, but that is only because he has not the wit to understand the uses of money. Usury is an inevitable consequence of money. Look what happens in the world of Islamic finance; interest is haram, so Islamic financiers operate on a system of fees and rebates. In the end it comes down to the same thing: a charge on the use of money.

I repeat: man proposes, money disposes. If you want to make an intelligent reply to my post, you will have to chew on that statement first.

Hmm. Going to rethink what I wrote before.

Money is (compatible) food, water, air, sunlight (vitamin d, psychological responses), shelter, survival strategy, etc. To get those things you must work. Work is not itself money because only what it produces can be considered money. You have to kill for food. Breathe for air. Convert energy from the sun to vitamin-d. Some of these functions are performed inside our body by autonomous processes and others require our concentrated effort. Ultimately, if you're unable to perform these actions then you eventually die for various reasons dependent on their causes.

Since we do not have perfect knowledge then we suffer over-time from various afflictions that can increasingly accumulate and either cause deterioration in our body or immediate death. Too many of these afflictions will kill us. These can be internal (like cellular aging) or they can be external (like a tsunami or a unseen falling rock that strikes us from the cliff-side or a large asteroid that finally after many years strikes earth and kills its life). At present time, our awareness in the United States limits us to an average lifespan of about 77 or 78 years. Because our awareness is shown to increase over-time then it's logical that our lifespan will also increase at a similar pace. It's estimated that even if we could have perfect youthful bodies that do not age we would still die within 300 years due to accidents, crime, and other mortal events. But as our awareness increases even these can be reduced, but it's likely that we'll always die since we're not likely to ever have perfect knowledge.

So I can say that awareness is money too since it's a survival strategy. But it's generic and could be any number of things. For example instinct could be considered awareness stored in our DNA.

Money is (broadly) value. To not have money means to not have value.

So to eliminate money you have to eliminate value. How? $50 for a pair of cheap shoes. $20,000 for a sedan. $11 for a meal at a restaurant. Firstly, how does value go down? Value goes down when things are plentiful and cheap to make. If things are easy to make - which means the work to produce them is easy - and widespread then they're generally cheap. So to eliminate value altogether you must infinitely make things plentiful and cheap. How do you do that in a universe of conservation? A universe that counts every penny and is (relatively) finite puts a hard limit on our ability to eliminate money. It ensures that things will always have some value.

We cannot live without money unless there's infinity and no limits on our use of it.

reply to post by michaelbrux

Money is a version of my time.

Again, this is simply Marx's labour theory of value restated.

Did you read jonnywhite's post, the one to which I replied earlier? He suggests that money is energy. That is a somewhat similar position to yours, though more sophisticated, because it covers resources as well as labour, whereas your definition (money is time) only covers labour. Anyway, you're both wrong; money is neither energy nor labour.

To verify this, all we need do is look at the operations of markets. If money were mere labour or time, all markets could, theoretically, be efficient ones – they would operate rationally. But markets do not operate rationally. Why not? Because, as I said earlier, the true nature of money is inextricably bound to human nature itself.

reply to post by jonnywhite

So I can say that awareness is money too since it's a survival strategy. But it's generic and could be any number of things. For example instinct could be considered awareness stored in our DNA.

To eliminate money you have to eliminate value. How?

Well done; you're making good progress towards an understanding of money. Your reflections are gradually bringing you to the point of recognising that money is not one thing, but many – that it may indeed, be everything. And for some people it is.

Money is not value itself, obviously, because the value of money is not fixed. But you are right in saying that if we wanted to eliminate money (as our impractical friend CosmicEgg wants to do) we would have to destroy the concept of value. That, of course, is neither possible nor desirable.

We cannot live without money unless there's infinity and no limits on our use of it.

That is correct, and very well observed. Again, a star for your post even though your conclusions are wrong. At least you're thinking straight.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by frazzle

 

That is simply Marx's 'labour theory of value', which he outlines in the early chapters of Das Kapital. As an economic proposition, it has long been discredited. Markets do not assign value to a good based on the labour put into it but according to the laws of supply and demand.

Anyway, jonnywhite did not mean what you think he meant. He was talking specifically about physical energy. It is actually a far more sophisticated take on money than Marx's naively idealistic one.

Are you suggesting Ben Franklin was a Marxist?

Every peasant believes that usury is the root of all evil, but that is only because he has not the wit to understand the uses of money. Usury is an inevitable consequence of money. Look what happens in the world of Islamic finance; interest is haram, so Islamic financiers operate on a system of fees and rebates. In the end it comes down to the same thing: a charge on the use of money.

I guess Ben was a peasant, as well as a Marxist.

Islamic finance has worked, and would continue to work very well if not for the fractional accounting, debt based central banking cartel throwing NATO soldiers against Islamic countries to keep them in the stone age and under the heavy hand of usury.

I repeat: man proposes, money disposes. If you want to make an intelligent reply to my post, you will have to chew on that statement first.

There was absolutely nothing elitist about that sentence.