Fundamentally, money is real -- at least until we're reduced to a level of
depravity and starvation when we start eating one another. It was even real
at almost that stage when:

"There was a great famine in the city; the siege lasted so long that a
donkey's head sold for eighty shekels of silver and a quarter of a cab of
dove's dung for five shekels." [2 Kings ch 6 v 25]

And if money isn't shekels of silver, then it's packets of cigarettes as in
present-day Russia, or poppy seeds as in present-day Afghanistan. All
tangible, not abstract.

Credit is certainly an abstraction. We're now into abstraction after
abstraction as one dubious financial instrument succeeds another in the
world of computerised finance.  That's precisely what I've been trying to
say in my last two postings.

However, I'll grant you that governments started the rot a century ago when
they turned real money into paper tokens in order to play fast and loose
with its value.

Considering the bouts of inflation of the last century, and the likelilood
of prolonged deflation in this, money will have to become real again sooner
or later.

We had a glimpse of what real money was during the 19th century when its
value remained constant, when free trade reigned, when real economic growth
occurred and when the working man started to become free of agricultural
servitude. 

KH

At 15:06 20/04/02 -0400, you wrote:
(MG)
<<<<
I think I should have written "real" money?

Isn't all "money" simply a set of conventions wrapped around beliefs in the
form of tokens.  "Credit" simply takes that to one further stage of
abstraction, and e-money credit only dematerializes this further.

We can tie values down and link them to real exchanges and then abstract
that up, but talking about "real" in these terms seems to me to be about as
empty and pointless (and fairly dripping with ideological assumptions) as
talking about the "real" nature of humankind.

Whoops sorry, that's another discussion.
>>>>


__________________________________________________________
�Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England;  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________

Reply via email to