Glen -
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 don't find the golden rule (one variant of "social equality"?) exactly
a delusional idea, though that is probably a thread unto itself.
BTW, I'm not sure I think of this as a "lossy compression" as a
dimension-reducing projection. Multiple transactions can be like
multiple points of view projected from said high dimension, recovering
some of what was "lost" (obscured) in any given transaction/POV.
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.
I agree that they are not that simple... it was merely an illustration
of what I consider to be one *obvious* problem with abstraction of value.
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.
Agreed. In a true community, I would not sell my last egg during a
famine to someone who was hoarding or "scalping" them to my neighbors,
but rather to someone whose survival through the famine increased my own
chance of survival (ideally through the increased health/survival of the
whole network/community). In fact it is likely that I would not "sell"
but "gift" such a precious nugget of protein/sustenance to the right
member of a community as an ultimately selfish act.
And that point
makes me think the problem is at a coarser layer than IOU vs YOM.
Either of those "notes" seem benign.
If you have ever suffered the attentions (presence) of someone with "too
much money", you might not call the last one "benign". There is
nothing more offensive than someone whose spare change exceeds your net
worth, tossing it around as if they can buy you, or your firstborn, or
your soul with the flick of a pen... It is one of the worst things I
find about first world tourists in third world countries, even without
realizing it, dropping a months wages for someone in service class on a
single meal for themselves. It is dehumanizing, even if it supports the
tall pyramid of an extreme trickle-down economy.
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.
Yes, the time-constant of abstracted IOU/YOM is an interesting
feature... I suppose (hyper)inflation is a good antidote to this,
though it moves one from being a "saver" to being a "borrower" or a
"lender", or worse yet, to adding absolutely nothing to the economy
except the management/manipulation/speculation of loans.
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.
Yes, this is probably the most risky part of abstraction of value... the
abstraction.
- Steve
============================================================
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
