What seems to be at issue here is the human inclination to search for, and
set, standards. We've done it with distance, weight, size, temperature and
various other things. If something weighs ten kilos, it weighs ten kilos,
whether its and ostrich, a motorcycle or a huge bag of wind. We've done the
same thing in the case of exchange value or valuing wealth (or poverty) or
making international comparisons. We've applied a common standard which
permit things to be valued so that exchanges can be made, wealth can be
measured or taxed, and comparisons among living standards can be made.
Money, while an abstraction, is so important to all of our affairs (just as
length or weight is) that it has taken on a reality of its own. What is
unique about money as a standard, however, is that it does not, and cannot,
remain fixed in value. Or, perhaps to turn things around, the things that
it measures do not remain fixed for long. Perhaps this is because money is
a strictly human standard. It does not exist in nature like, for example,
temperature does.
Ed Weick
> At 08:18 21/04/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >Hmmm....
> >
> >Rocks are "real", we can stub our toes on them; coins are "real", we can
> >choke on them, or throw them at dogs urinating on our lawns (forgive me
> >Bishop Berkeley). "Money", like other forms of totem worship is a social
> >convention.
> >
> >MG
>
> Please yourself, then. But you're on a slippery slope if you can claim the
> privilege of denoting anything or everything as real or unreal as you
wish.
>
> Money has been real for at least 5,000 years, and very probably longer,
> ever since man traded beyond the confines of his local community. Except
> for natural disasters like droughts or famines, different forms of money
> have held their value for very long periods of time (except when
government
> intervenes). If, as it now turns out, you want to reinterpret all known
> history and all known cultures as having been prey to a social convention
> and not an economic necessity, then so be it.
>
> KH
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> "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]
> _________________________________________________
>
