[PLUG-TALK] What is money? (was Fair Use, etc.)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Mar 29 01:35:54 UTC 2002


On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote:
> I've read a number of articles and spent hours listening to theories that
> carefully explain how somewhere in the process of going off the gold standard
> or developing Federal Reserve Notes everyone lost all their rights and we
> are actually virtual wage/interest slaves of an economic system that's secretly
> controlled by International Finance or some other monolithic secret body.

I've heard and read much of the same stuff.

My view is slightly different, however.  I definitely see how a society in
debt is a society more easily controlled.  (You're not going to quit your
abusive and destructive job that gives your employer high profit margins
if you can't make your house payment when you do so, etc.)  But the
relationship to that and fiscal policy is much less clear.

I look at the way the Treasury (buying its own notes to control the costs
and stabilize the value of the dollar, etc.) and Federal Reserve (printing
money and then charging interest on it) operate and instinctually feel
that it's fucked up and needlessly complex.

But I learned long ago that the existence of a bureaucratic clusterfuck
does not ALWAYS indicate a conspiracy of obfuscation.

Like the prison-industrial complex and the war on drugs (and unlike the
war on terrorism), I think the monetary system evolved to serve the
purposes of the powerful and hinder the progress of the people through
natural system dynamics rather than imposed intelligence.  I don't believe
there is or ever was a secret committee that devised the system to benefit
itself.  Rather, the system evolved around several people working in their
own interest and both consciously and unconsciously encouraging the causes
of the effects most beneficial to themselves.

> My willingness to exchange useful stuff (like food) for gold is
> contingent on my belief that most other people will be willing to
> trade me other useful stuff for the gold I'm holding.  Gold is nice
> and shiny, but I can't eat it, live in it or wear it on my feet.  In
> order for it to have real value, others must *believe* that it has
> real value... and those others could only hold such a belief if they,
> too, believe that most everyone shares their belief.
>
> Thus, what value gold and silver have derives almost entirely from our
> shared perception that they are valuable materials.  In this respect,
> gold and silver coins are little different than paper currency, stock
> certificates, or Beanie Babies.  It is the *shared perception* of
> enduring value--not the item itself--which holds value.

I wrote almost this exact paragraph earlier today.  I don't think I sent
it, though.

I guess the only fundamental difference I see between the two are that
paper money, stock certificates, and Beanie Babies have a specific locus
of control of scarcity.  So the Federal Reserve, some particular major
stockholder, and Ty, Inc. have much more ability to dictate the value of
those things than, say, silver.  But I can't say for sure because I don't
know what the real distribution of gold and silver are in this world.  It
could be that some particular interest has gathered or has the ability to
gather so much of that resource that they can control the amount in
circulation with their whim.

Anyway, just a few cents.  Heh.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list