tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (01/20/86)
(Note that followups are directed to net.politics.theory .) > The problem is that understanding money as a medium of exchange is > insufficient to understand what money is -- the point is not that the > goods one can exchange have a monetary value, but that they have an > intrinsic value. Since money has no intrinsic value, money buying > money gives no understanding of money. There is no such thing as intrinsic value. But if you mean use-value, the uses to which a good may be put for obtaining further values, even paper money has that. (Remember the joke beginning by asking for toilet paper and ending up asking for change for a ten?) It just doesn't have uses as normally valuable as, say, those of gold or silver. Money, which is simply a common medium of exchange, is not a measure of value. It is used as a measure because calculation is easy and because the expectations of future trade that are based on past trade are fairly reliable. To fully understand money, you must understand the basics of exchange. To say that understanding exchange gives no understanding of money is to say that understanding money gives no understanding of money. (And the implicit is even more eloquent.) David Hudson
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/28/86)
In article <324@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >> The problem is that understanding money as a medium of exchange is >> insufficient to understand what money is -- the point is not that the >> goods one can exchange have a monetary value, but that they have an >> intrinsic value. Since money has no intrinsic value, money buying >> money gives no understanding of money. > >There is no such thing as intrinsic value. But if you mean >use-value, the uses to which a good may be put for obtaining >further values, even paper money has that. (Remember the >joke beginning by asking for toilet paper and ending up >asking for change for a ten?) It just doesn't have uses as >normally valuable as, say, those of gold or silver. A point well taken. But there is another form of money: money in the form of electronically encoded information -- your bank balance, for example. This is money in pure form, and it has *no* intrinsic value. (And what I mean by intrinsic value is what you prefer to call use-value.) >Money, which is simply a common medium of exchange, is not a >measure of value. It is used as a measure because >calculation is easy and because the expectations of future >trade that are based on past trade are fairly reliable. If money is used as a measure of value, it is a measure of value. What else would it mean for something to be a measure of value? >To fully understand money, you must understand the basics of >exchange. To say that understanding exchange gives no >understanding of money is to say that understanding money >gives no understanding of money. (And the implicit is even >more eloquent.) The claim is that understanding the exchange of money solely for other money does not give an understanding of money. You are attacking a strawman. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (02/01/86)
>> Money, which is simply a common medium of exchange, is not a >> measure of value. It is used as a measure because >> calculation is easy and because the expectations of future >> trade that are based on past trade are fairly reliable. > If money is used as a measure of value, it is a measure of value. What > else would it mean for something to be a measure of value? It is used as a measure of values, not of value. What money "measures" is constrained by individual valuation, but is not a measure of that valuation. Individual valuation is preferential; it is a choice among alternatives. Money measures what may be expected in future trade. The things for which money is traded have value. Thus what money does (when it is reliable) is provide a means of assessing what values must be given up in order to have other values, *only insofar as values may be obtained by means of a market*. Money simplifies the complex process of assessing what is possible. (Incidentally, money is a fallout of property rights. It loses its magic where ownership and trade of the means of production are completely forbidden. Its objectivity is the consequence of the objectivity of property rights.) >> To fully understand money, you must understand the basics of >> exchange. To say that understanding exchange gives no >> understanding of money is to say that understanding money >> gives no understanding of money. (And the implicit is even >> more eloquent.) > The claim is that understanding the exchange of money solely for other > money does not give an understanding of money. Understanding the exchange of one kind of money for another kind of money requires understanding what an exchange is, and furthermore requires knowing what indirect exchange is. An understanding of indirect exchange implies an understanding of money. Only if you qualify the understanding by its incompleteness can you support the absurdity that is your claim. David Hudson
shad@teldata.UUCP (02/04/86)
In article <342@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: > ... (Incidentally, money is a fallout of property > rights. It loses its magic where ownership and trade of the > means of production are completely forbidden. Its > objectivity is the consequence of the objectivity of > property rights.) Is this theoretical or can you give an example of such an instance or place? What substitutes for money? Barter? In Poland when mistrust of the currency was rising the people fell back to barter and used liquor and cigarettes (things *of* value) as the medium of exchange. -- Warren N. Shadwick ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!shad
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (02/04/86)
In article <342@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >>> Money, which is simply a common medium of exchange, is not a >>> measure of value. It is used as a measure because >>> calculation is easy and because the expectations of future >>> trade that are based on past trade are fairly reliable. > >> If money is used as a measure of value, it is a measure of value. What >> else would it mean for something to be a measure of value? > >It is used as a measure of values, not of value. What money >"measures" is constrained by individual valuation, but is >not a measure of that valuation. Individual valuation is >preferential; it is a choice among alternatives. Money >measures what may be expected in future trade. The things >for which money is traded have value. Thus what money does >(when it is reliable) is provide a means of assessing what >values must be given up in order to have other values, *only >insofar as values may be obtained by means of a market*. >Money simplifies the complex process of assessing what is >possible. (Incidentally, money is a fallout of property >rights. It loses its magic where ownership and trade of the >means of production are completely forbidden. Its >objectivity is the consequence of the objectivity of >property rights.) You are arguing that "measure of value" means "measure of absolute, intrinsic value". But we have agreed that there is no such thing. What I mean by "measure of value" is essentially what you mean by "measure of values". I do not accept that individual value `is' preference among alternatives; i.e. that a person's complete preference list constitutes a complete explication of his values. I believe a utility function is closer to the true nature of individual value. I will agree that it is very difficult to determine what a person's utility function is; but then it is difficult to determine an individual's complete preference list, too. >> The claim is that understanding the exchange of money solely for other >> money does not give an understanding of money. > >Understanding the exchange of one kind of money for another >kind of money requires understanding what an exchange is, >and furthermore requires knowing what indirect exchange is. >An understanding of indirect exchange implies an >understanding of money. Only if you qualify the >understanding by its incompleteness can you support the >absurdity that is your claim. You have jumped into a philosophical exchange about the nature of understanding, and I believe your objection was based on a misunder- standing of what was being said. Perhaps a better statement of what I was saying in the sentence quoted above would be acheived by substituting the word "knowledge" for the first occurance of the word "understanding". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "indirect exchange", but I am reasonably certain that understanding it was *not* part of my condition. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108