I agree that the compression is lossy. But it all depends on _what_ is lost. If the compression extracts the (an?) essence of basic human needs, then it's a good thing. It loses all the nonsense (e.g. delusional ideas of social equality kumbaya) and hones in on things like bread and water.
I'm not sure the problems with it boil down nicely to a conflation of "I owe you" and "You owe me". But they might. Some layers out, the problem I see with it is the difference between making a buck for basic needs vs. making bunches of bucks that will accrue to meet the basic needs of my descendants for millenia to come. I.e. the problems aren't with the compression so much as the misplaced value. And that point makes me think the problem is at a coarser layer than IOU vs YOM. Either of those "notes" seem benign. It's the lifetime of the note that is the problem. A good mnemonic for this is the word "currency" ... descended from "current". I've often thought investments, assets, liabilities, etc. should be measured by a metric separate, orthogonal to the currency with which they were traded. I.e. perhaps we shouldn't be able to _own_ cash, at least not for very long. Most checks have a "not valid after 90 days" qualifier on them. That seems reasonable to me. As for your basic point, I agree completely that concrete exchanges, face 2 face, facilitate the exchange of intangibles, trust, understanding ... like boxers touching gloves before pounding each other into meat ... or an agreement not to shoot someone in the back ... nobility, honor, respect, etc. And the more abstract the currency, the less it facilitates this exchange of intangibles. Steve Smith wrote at 09/27/2012 10:55 AM: > I agree that "commerce" (especially in it's larger sense, embracing > community and barter and things other than "bucks") can be a valuable > ingredient in stable society... > > What I personally am most worried about is the implications of the > (true, but maybe unfortunate?) statement "to make a buck is a > compression of ...". I believe that our reduction of the value of > *everything* to currency is a lossy compression, and that what is lost > may not be missed until it is too late. > > My touchstone for this is the difference between "a buck" as an "I Owe > You" vs a "You Owe Me". I believe that currency started as a > normalized form of "I Owe You's" but that somewhere soon after the > formation of that device, it became conflated with "You Owe Me's". This > is a subtle but crucial difference. > > Whenever I might purchase something (good or service), I don't presume > that I have a *right* to that good or service simply because I have the > price of it in my wallet. I take the signs in many establishments as > sacred: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". This might > be a thinly veiled reference to the racial/cultural prejudices of > yesterday, or to the individualist shop owner's assertion of their right > to not have to deal with jerks... but it is a reminder to ME that any > transaction is *more* than the exchange of $$ value. > > I think this observation supports your point. When you buy or sell > something from/to someone, you also exchange something else much less > tangible... it can be a building of trust... of understanding even > perhaps? In this model, $$ are the needle pulling very ephemeral > threads which ultimately weave a fine and strong fabric of community. > Or so I like to think. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
