pull down to refresh

In my MONEY CLASS a few weeks back, I ventured into the question of the “nominal and the real.” These are crucial economics concept that often get bungled and confused: The nominal, a word that sounds weird, is the numbers you "really" see, the numbers in your bank account, the price of gasoline or what you hand over to the barista for coffee; The real, the word that sounds like a real thing I can touch, is an invisible, arcane feature of our economic world.
In business press and among midwit academics, real means “adjusted for inflation.” (The adjustment process itself is fishy and deserves separate attention1.) That idea is roughly right but nowhere close to capturing how marvelous—and spiritual!—the cooperative the world of money really is.
We're often told, by religious or leftist types alike, that focusing on money is bad. They usually mean wealth or "greed," rather than the monetary units or the technology that is money itself.
Parker Lewis in his book Gradually, Then Suddenly from earlier this year, obsesses over this idea. And not even he does it justice:
“Money is the good that facilities economic coordination between parties who otherwise would not have a basis to cooperate. It is the good that allows society to function and to accumulate capital that improves our standard of living [, the good that] allows for specialization and the division of labor. It enables individuals to pursue their own interests.” (p. 173)
By having a shared monetary language, we convey information to one another about our preferences, about scarcity of real assets and goods and services, and most importantly human effort and ingenuity. What we have and what we want, what we need and what we can make. The monetary layer—the nominal—operates on top of a real world, a world filled with human desires and wants, and the abilities and knowledge of others to satisfy them.
There’s a Friedrich Hayek quote (cherished economist, Nobel Prize 1974) that goes something like “money is the greatest instrument of freedom ever invented.” And yet, money—most obviously in the case of bitcoin, consisting entirely of digital numbers in cyberspace (well, elliptic curves…)—is invisible and a truly non-real thing. So, says Lewis discussing this topic, “if we strive for money, it is because money offers us the widest choice in enjoying the fruits of our efforts.”
What’s so fascinating about monetary cooperation is that we can extend the division of labor to unfathomable lengths: I can sit in a small village at the edge of the world, surrounded by foods that don’t grow here, materials that can’t be made here, books and tech devices I can't myself make—or even begin to explain what they contain or how they were created.
It’s all made possible by the human technology of cooperation that is money—even as trashy ones as the fiats filling up our wallets and bank accounts. Money allows for the specialization that makes the world so rich in real terms. Money is also created by the desire/need to specialize.
It’s a chicken-and-egg problem, where the division of labor requires money to extend itself and money only makes sense in a complicated economic order of an extended division of labor.
When we step back at look at money as a device for human coexistence, it truly is a magical, spiritual thing.
I kinda love it.
That's today's little money lesson. Peace, J

Footnotes

Very nice. Thanks for this post.
I think when people get hung up thinking money is bad, it's really, as you've said, "greed" or addiction to money. (Maybe that's really an addiction to power?)
What you wrote reminded me of a section from one Steven Pressfield's books, Turning Pro:

Addicted to money

The real utility of money is its convenience as a medium of exchange. If you and I have a goat in Smyrna, we don't have to carry the poor beast in our arms all the way to Aleppo to trade it for a carpet. We can sell the goat in Smyrna, stash a silver daric in our pocket, then take the daric to Aleppo to buy the carpet.
But when we're addicted to money, we become hooked on the metaphor. Is money how we keep score? Is it magic? Is wealth a currency that opens doors, realizes possibilities, produces transcendence? Money is second only to sex in the richness of its metaphor. But, as in the case of carnality, our real object is the currency of our own hearts. (The same premise applies to power, fame, and all other external expressions of potency.) What you and I are really seeking is our own voice, our own truth, our own authenticity.
reply
I've often said language is the only human innovation that might be as significant as money.
reply
Translator/linguist gf (#755878) says "you're a wonderful human, thank you!"
reply
50 sats \ 3 replies \ @naiw 29 Nov
@denlillaapan can you please create and share a central index at one URL for all your MONEY CLASS OF THE DAY posts? We want to feature it in the next Bitcoin Breakdown newsletter next Tuesday. Thanks
reply
OK, @naiw -- how's this?
Even better if there's a good way to do this on SN (maybe conveniently on bio or something...? psst, @k00b)
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @naiw 30 Nov
Ah, it's Joakim Book. We've featured your work plenty already. Keep it up! This works perfectly, thanks. Featuring it on Tuesday.
reply
You overestimate my tech abilities. No clue how to achieve this :/
(Maybe Authory can do it for me, not sure)
reply
You describe money and more specifically money where it is used as a Means of Exchange. Yes it is the means by which we can exchange our surplus goods and services for those others produce and is the fundamental enabler of trade. But Bitcoin is not mostly being used as money. Bitcoins use has been slyly shifted toward being predominantly used as a speculative commodity. Being defined as a commodity by taxation regimes has strongly driven this shift. Using Bitcoin as a speculative commodity is much less threatening to the bankers and governments who hold the fiat monetary system hegemony. Bitcoin being used as a speculative commodity also makes Bitcoin much easier for them to capture and control. Within 5 years a majority of Bitcoin could be held by institutional custodians. In terms of its original stated purpose- as a censorship resistant P2P payments protocol Bitcoin is not succeeding- although it still can be used as a means of payment it very rarely is.
reply
this is true and a reasonable fear to have.
Being defined as a commodity by taxation regimes has strongly driven this shift
What I wonder is how impactful/important that will end up being. A gold bar with teleportation, even if it isn't used for daily teleportation very often, still has the ability to do that. Very easy step if and when humanity needs to exit
reply
The fiat monetary system derives its power by monopolising the function of MoE- ie payments between participants in the local and global economies. The power of this is clear when you look at SWIFT. The power of this is clear when you look at how at a nation state level everyones need of fiat money in order to transact in the national economy delivers the power to tax and debase to governments and bankers. Government debt is extended by bankers because of governments ability to tax.
As long as Bitcoin is increasingly seen as and used as a commodity it does not threaten the fiat monetary systems power base derived from the monopoly over MoE.
The longer and more entrenched the narrative of Bitcoin being a speculative commodity the less tenable is any claim for the need for private custody- if the majority of Bitcoin hodlers are in it for the speculative SoV gains why is private custody even required? Why not eliminate the 'problem' of AML by restricting custody to 'trusted' institutional custodians?
Bitcoins capacity to operate as a P2P payments protocol is being degraded constantly because every sat that is accumulated into institutional custody is no longer available for P2P payments. Within 5 years most Bitcoin could be held by institutions. Institutions which can be forced to comply with a ban on private custody.
At that point an order 6102B could offer to buy all privately held sats at market price. Those who did not surrender would only be able to trade on a black market- if the majority were invested with the purpose of speculative gain then its reasonable to expect that the majority of private hodlers would surrender custody.
The bankers would have then captured and controlled the protocol into a harmless speculative commodity shadow of the white papers revolutionary intent. As long as MoE use of Bitcoin is minimal there is anyway probably no need to ban private custody- because when used as a speculative commodity the protocol is not directly challenging the fiat system.
reply