Maybe I'm missing something, but exchanging some gold (or BC) for some
oranges or sex does not create a debt relationship. It's unclear how
possessing an asset implies debt.
Debt can exist without any obvious exchange medium in sight. You can owe
somebody oranges, sex, or diamonds. Some of these will depreciate
(oranges and sex), some won't. Some debt enforcement modes will require
a vig from the debtor, so if you owe 10 oranges today, it will be 20
oranges next month. Or 2000 if you are unlucky. Rotting (inflation) of
oranges is of now interest to your creditor, as he will send Cheech to
collect. Cheech always delivers.
Viewing debt as a currency feature does not make sense, as it
misrepresents the social phenomenon as a technical one.
Storing and saving value in instruments that local fiefdoms cannot
snatch has definite benefits. If the mechanism to move this value is
immune to the local fiefdom reach, that also has definite benefits. The
argument that this can be used to evade fair (or less fair) taxation is
valid and needs addressing. But the argument that inherent
non-inflationary nature of the exchange instrument is evil is not.
It is naive to assume that "I am lending you 10 BC, and you must repay
me 10 BC" is a technical issue; it is not. It's a convenient sleight of
hand to automatically ascribe technical features of the currency and
crude numbers to the social contract. There is nothing natural or given
that the debt of 10 BC today is also debt 10 BC next year. Following
that logic, borrowing an acorn requires repayment by 2000lb oak tree in
few years. For 10 BC (today) to be equal 10 BC in one year, the creditor
needs Cheech. If Cheech works for you, that debt may be equal to 3 BC
next year.
The BC cat is out of the bag. Sooner or later it will be possible to
freely move and hide non-inflationary exchange value, forever, and it's
unlikely that anything can stop that. Cash is making a comeback. What is
needed are mechanisms to keep the society from devolving into your
favorite dystopia, without counting on turning this wheel back. It may
mean elaborate non-monetary taxation and eventual abandonment of the
very concept of money (after all, Star Trek was based on that.) But
stopping the free currency movement and storage is not on the menu.
On 5/4/16, 13:55, Florian Cramer wrote:
But gold has hardly any intrinsic value - even less so than in the past
as it is no longer the best material to fill dental cavities - so it
boils down to a token of exchange, and hence for assets and debt.
Otherwise, you're just sitting on a pile of metal.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
