Skip to main content

Money versus 'Resource based economics'

There's still mass confusion ruling in the midst of the Zeitgeist movement and the Venus Project zealots. The Zeitgeist movement thinks we do not need money because a fraction of the monetary system we currently have is fractional reserve banking, while the Venus Project thinks it's easy to do a bit of finely tuned central planning and cater for everyone's subjective evaluation of goods and services. Here are some basic questions about money that I tried to answer:

How is money generated?

Money is a medium of exchange. It is generated by manufacturing it, just like any other product. Unlike any other product, money (as in currency) has the highest marketability and serves as the greatest store of value. Any currency has to have these 2 properties. I'll illustrate this with an egg:  Suggest that you are an egg farmer.

Highest marketability merely means that everyone is happier when you pay them in money than when you pay them in eggs. On your egg farm, your workers will be happier when you pay them in money than when you hand them a tray of eggs for a day's work. In turn, you can get eggs with money, but you can't usually trade eggs for something else in the barter or direct exchange way.

A store of value means you get a bit more time to decide what you'd like to trade. This means you aren't limited by how long your eggs stay fresh in order to make purchases in the direct exchange/barter way, but you can shove all the money under your mattress for a rainy day.

As you can see, our current system separates the basic economic principle of exchange from money entirely. In short, 'let them eat credit'. You don't exchange your eggs on your egg farm for a car with money serving as a convenient medium of exchange. Instead, your car is usually bundled with financial services, guarantees that you won't default, monthly instalments and insurance to the extent that it's more about currency than exchanging goods and services for other goods and services.

For this reason, amongst others, the Rothbards of the world believe we should stick to an objective standard for money. The first known cases of money did this, with measures of silver equal to a certain amount of grain. Which leads us to your next question:

What conditions exist when this money is created?

It varies. Money as in a medium of exchange is usually created whenever you have something that I value and I have something you value, but we don't value them equally and we find something that has a higher marketability and serves as a store of value. This could be anything, from the Roman Empire's silver coins (which served as currency as far as India and existed side-by-side with bartering), to cowrie shells, which was the currency of choice in Africa for hundreds of years. By the way, cowrie shells also cast doubt in the notion that there is no empirical observation of currency taking root, besides the fact that debt is also currency.

The exact material used for money depends on many factors. In history, the most common denominator is usually some precious metal, like gold. This is because it is scarce, its purity can be determined objectively and it can be weighed objectively, so it serves as a standard. I still think we should use beer as our currency. Often, people were not happy with the authorities meddling with the purity of commodity money, which brings us to:

Who owns the 'right' to create money?

Everyone does. At least that's the ideal of people like Friedrich Hayek. This also happens whenever a certain currency is inflated to such an extent that its marketability is no longer more significant than something else, like the Zimbabwean Dollar that was neglected in favour of American Dollars, or mobile phone credit that is used as currency in Iraq. It's also the idea of bitcoin and other newer versions of digital currency. In reality, the authorities keep a tight grip on money creation as it's easy to launder money, in which case they lose out on taxes, or to counterfeit money, in which case we may be defrauded. 

What purpose does interest serve?

Without interest, money lenders have no incentive to lend to those who need money. This is an awkward position for many small businesses and the poorest of the poor, many of whom are women in impoverished communities building businesses with loan shark money. I'd think interest serves everyone's interests.

Without currency there is no economy!!!! So why are we not taught about currency and the creation thereof?

I'd take that one step further: Without currency, there is no civilisation. We live in the information age, where we are quite capable to teach ourselves nearly anything we'd like to know. We do have currency so going back to a stage where we no longer have currency is not progress, it's regression. If anything, we'd have to invent and embrace the next stage of our evolution. In other words, build the future.


Hs said…
You have completely misunderstood what a resource based economy is about. It is about the basic notion of 'narrow self interest' vs. 'wide self interest', thus trading vs. sharing. Simple sharing and giving has existed since the beginning of time (long before our monetary system), and grows bigger and bigger every day in spite of the economy. Wikipedia is one good example, where the profit motive is not the reason for it's existence, but rather several other motives, like the joy of writing and sharing information, the rewarding feeling of giving something to others, and the fulfillment of social responsibility. There are countless examples of a 'gift economy' online, in software, volunteers, Really Really Free Markets (google it), and so on.

There are more and more people waking up every day to the craziness of our existing system and the relieving simplicity of simply sharing.

You say we need a currency, and I agree in a way. Still, no matter the currency, all prices will always be arbitrary set by the sellers based on a perceived demand in 'the market'. So, the currency we will have in a resource based economy will not be one, buy many. And they will not be managed by any central bank or any institution whatsoever. The currencies will be managed by each and every individual. And the currencies names are: conscience, gratitude, love, compassion, forgiveness, excitement, fulfillment, joy, trust, and even more I haven't even thought about.

These currencies are the real currencies and can never be broken. If you feel that you do something for others and society you will get a lot of good conscience, you might get gratitude as well, not to speak of love and compassion. You will feel these things in yourself and feel your 'RBE currency' account is filling up.

On the contrary, if you are only taking, you will feel your currency account being drained.

This is very easy and is in the heart and minds of all people. Guaranteed. And this 'system' is a whole lot simpler than any artificial currency, like gold, silver, coins or fiat money which are all based on mistrust and control over each other resulting in a downward spiral of more and more greed. These 'new' currencies has nothing to do with 'civilization'. If they are allowed to continue, they will surely be the end of it. A 'civilized' person to me, is one of compassion, sharing and giving, and not of mistrust, trading and hoarding.
garg said…
From your link, it appears that you have completely misunderstood resource based economics. I's not about bartering or a gift economy, nor is it about trading, which is what we do with money and which is just a more advance case of bartering, nor is it about a gift economy. Simply put, it's a resource allocation system run by a spambot. The Venus Project would actively discourage trading and market mechanisms of any sort, which includes bartering, in order to prevent hoarding and to ensure an equitable resource distribution.

Wikipedia is not an example of a gift economy nor of bartering. Wikipedia is an example of collective intelligence, but it's very much rooted in the notion of private property, along with the driving forces of incentives and it relies on 'hoarding'. If you disagree, try to edit a mod's page and see how long it lasts. Someone took 'ownership' of their pages by virtue of the fact that they've toiled with the soil, as it were. Wikipedia would also not be possible without hoarding.It would not be possible with a 'resource based economy', as such a system is designed to prevent the excess that leads to voluntary contributions towards building such a framework by virtue of its equitable distribution policies.

More fundamentally, any economy is per definition resource based. Breaking the currency system is not really going to help to improve the situation, nor is living in a human zoo run by spambots going to help much.

Popular posts from this blog

Fist bump the Trump

I must confess that I did not follow this election as it unfolded, because I have no skin in this game. I only became interested when I saw the crocodile tears on Facebook.

What fascinated me more was that the Trump supporters came out of the closet for the first time to voice their opinions. Virtually none of these Trump supporters espoused racist, misogynistic or any of those kind of deplorable views. Most of them were just pointing fingers at the know-it-all Clinton supporters.

What characterised this election? Rather than enlightened liberals waging a culture war with backward rednecks and hayseeds, three things characterised this election for me:
Shared hubris: Our candidate is bad, but the other candidate is even worse. Both parties seemed to espouse this sentiment.Joe Sixpack's Revenge: Based on voter turnout and based on for whom the largest voting group voted, this election was the revenge of the average American. That is average American by sheer number. Nobody bothered t…

Why has outrage come to dominate platforms like Twitter?

This question was posted on twitter by Sarah Britten Pillay. I shall try to answer that here, or at least address some of the topics surrounding this notion.

What makes a platform like Twitter more outrageous than the next? A brief summary of my thoughts on the topic: It would be interesting to contrive some outrage meter that could detect outrage levels in a piece of text.Plenty if not most of social media outrage is manufactured as a distraction.Outrage that isn't manufactured can be analysed by means of kin selection concepts from biology.If you aren't entirely sold on the sociobiology idea, then the balance of risk and incentive from game theory can also shed some light on the rationale behind social media outrage. Outrage levels are too damn high I do agree that social media platforms tend to be filled with more outrage than others, but as far as I know there is no means of detecting or measuring outrage. The need exists for some outrage quotient or some method of classify…

White tears the most valuable currency but not as valuable as fauxtrage

This formerly glorious publication which I shall not even bother naming has also fallen into the habit of censoring its comments section, at least when it comes to white tears. Fortunately, I could still save this obviously far superior comment from the rather myopic agitprop from whence it came. I know it is superior because the quality of your commentary is inversely proportional to how long it stays unscathed. That's why the sanctimonious finger-wagging op-eds rarely get deleted, but the comments rarely last long.
Anyone - black or white or of any other pigmentation persuasion - with a Rhodes Scholarship can but only cry White Tears. Someone with a Rhodes Scholarship is in the very lap of privilege, the likes of which not even the majority of pale South Africans born with a silver spoon will ever see. That is why it is not uncommon to see their ilk waiting on tables instead of whipping their slaves on their ill-begotten land, which they refuse to give up, you see.
A similar campa…