Archives for posts with tag: Fiat money


He’s right, right?
A freshly minted golden coin feels differently between your fingers – teeth? – than a ‘note’, no matter how ‘crisp’.

Yes, but…

No buts. He’s right!

Yeah?!?
Then how about this guy?
Is he right too?

Whatever has value in our world now does not have value in itself, according to its nature – nature is always value-less – but has been given value at some time, as a present – and it was we who gave and bestowed it.

Well, from the rational point of view, yes!
But they cannot be both right! Not at the same time, anyway… Not in the same world!

OK. I gather you have heard about Solomon?

The wise king of Israel? Yes, I have.

And about the ‘split baby‘?

Yes, of course! What do you think I am? A savage?

What I think of you and what you are in reality are two different things.
But this is another kettle of fish.

A ‘different’ kettle of fish, you mean.

Have it your way. But you have to take into consideration that the kettle itself remains the same. Only the fish inside are different, one catch at a time. Even when the fish belong to the same species, are of the same size and you take the pain to add the same number of fish to the kettle.
Let’s go back to Solomon splitting babies.
The ‘official’ story, the one presently belonging to the “Hebrew lore” and “recorded at 1 Kings 3:16-18“, had been redacted. From what had actually happened:

As we all know, Solomon had many wives. An a few concubines. 700 and 300, respectively. In these circumstances, he rarely had a full night’s sleep. No wonder that whenever he had to make a judgment, specially early in the morning, he used to send for his trusted personal advisor.
When the two women, both pretending to be the mother of the disputed child, had come to seek justice before king Solomon, he was rather sleepy. But the faithful – and very discreet, ‘coach’ was there. As always.
The first woman was asked to tell her side of the story.
Solomon, at some point, waived his hand. ‘Enough, you seem convincing enough. Take your baby and scram’.
‘But sir, shouldn’t you also listen what the other woman has to say? Before deciding the fate of the poor baby?’ whispered the adviser in Solomon’s ear?
‘Wait. Come back, both of you! Now, the other one, what’s your story?’
‘….’
‘You’re also very convincing… you have the child…’
‘But sir, they cannot both be right! At the same time… There’s only one child…’
Solomon, suddenly awaken, turns back to face the counselor: ‘You are absolutely right too!’
And only then, after realizing that sometimes – when there’s only one child to be had, for example – two people cannot entertain two different opinions and be right at the same time, Solomon did put his mind to work. In earnest. And came up with his famous solution.
“Split the child!”

Same thing here. Both J.P. Morgan and Friedrich Nietzsche had been partially right.
There is a difference between ‘real’ – a.k.a. ‘golden’, and fiat money but the difference is made by us!

See, no need to split the child. Not this time, anyway.
But we have to keep in mind that, no matter what any of us thinks, for money to retain their value – no matter whether those money are ‘real’ or ‘fiat’, we need to be able to make good use of those money.

A heap of gold and a suitcase of dollars are equally useless if there’s nothing to be bought!

Cineva a comentat, pe mail, cu privire la postarea despre Marx si Platon.
Cica: “Prea multa filozofie, si pe deasupra si complicata, in special privind ce este REAL si ce NU, sau cand devine Realul Real ???”

Evident ca am raspuns, bucuros, provocarii:

Dupa cum ne-au invatat filozofii materialisti, de la vechii greci pana la urmasii lui Marx, lucrurile exista independent de vointa noastra.
Au existat inainte ca noi sa ne nastem si unele dintre ele vor supravietui chiar si dupa ce noi nu vom mai fi pe aici sa vorbim despre ele.
La un moment dat au aparut niste alcatuiri care nu numai ca reactionau la ceea ce li se intampla ba chiar au inceput sa reflecteze (sa se gandeasca) la ce ar fi mai bine de facut intr-o anumita situatie. Cu alte cuvinte unele dintre fiinte au inceput sa fie constiente de constiinta lor.
Definitii:
Plantele si animalele sunt fiinte.
‘A fiinta’ inseamna a exista dupa niste legi proprii, pe care le cari dupa tine codificate in ADN, si care se suprapun peste legile generale ale fizicii si chimiei.
Pentru ca si cele mai primitive dintre fiinte controleaza ce intra in ele si ce iese din ele ba chiar unele dintre ele reactioneaza la ce se intampla in jurul lor – se misca pe sine, isi misca frunzele si/sau membrele, inghit, excreta, respira, etc, etc, – inseamna ca ele, toate, sunt ‘constiente’ (adica iau ‘decizii’, chiar si involuntar – in virtutea unor instructiuni inscrise in ADN-ul lor, in functie de anumiti parametrii ai unor variabile din jurul lor. Plantele, cele mai ‘tampite’ dintre fiinte, incep sa traga mai multa seva primavara si sa imboboceasca cand se lungeste ziua. Bacteriile stiu sa se transforme in spori atunci cand conditiile din jurul lor nu le mai sunt prielnice. Chiar si virusii, aia despre care multa lume nu crede ca sunt vii cu adevarat, sunt in stare ca o data intrati in celulele potrivite – oare de unde or sti care sunt alea? – se ‘desfac’ si apoi preiau controlul celulei respective si o obliga sa produca alti virusi.)
Fiintele suficient de evoluate au inceput sa gandeasca. Adica au devenit constiente de faptul ca sunt constiente si in loc sa reactioneze au inceput sa actioneze.
Orice alcatuire vie care are o cat de cata capacitate de a se misca se indeparteaza de sursa unui pericol, daca e in stare sa il perceapa. O planta isi strange frunzele daca o bate prea tare soarele, orice animal se indeparteaza de obiectele fierbinti atunci cand le este prea cald iar oamenii sunt instare sa tina in mana, o perioada destul de lunga de timp, o tigaie cu ulei incins daca sub tigaie se afla piciorul propriu sau vreun copil. Tot oamenii sunt in stare sa isi evalueze destul de bine sansele de a duce la bun sfarsit sarcini destul de complicate.
Pentru a face toate astea oamenii au nevoie sa ‘stie pe ce lume traiesc’. Pentru asta au inceput ‘sa se uite in jurul lor.’ Sa atribuie calitatea de ‘real’ unora dintre lucrurile pe care le intalnesc (de obicei pe cele pe care le inteleg sau pe cele a caror evidenta nu poate fi negata) si de ireal unora pe care le observa dar pe a caror existenta le vine greu sa o accepte).
Cateva exemple.
Antarctica exista si inainte de a fi descoperita dar a devenit cu adevarat ‘reala’ abia dupa ce povestirile despre ea au inceput sa fie crezute. Acelasi lucru s-a intamplat si cu Africa. Chiar si pe hartile desenate de romani, cei care au cucerit o buna bucata din nordul ‘continentului negru’, portiunea de dincolo de provinciile lor era descrisa cu mentiunea ‘hic sunt leones’ – ‘aici se afla lei’.
Sotului naiv ii vine greu sa accepte ca nevasta-sa il inseala – cu toate ca prietenii il avertizeaza asupra acestui lucru – si va fi convins cu adevarat abia cand o prinde ‘in fapt’. Abia atunci inselatoria devine ‘reala’, pentru el.
In schimb pentru sotul gelos realitatea este cu totul si cu totul alta. El este convins ca sotia sa il inseala chiar inainte ca aceasteia sa ii treaca prin cap asa ceva. Si tocmai atitudinea lui o va convinge pe nevastă sa transforme in fapt o realitate care pana atunci fusese doar virtuala.
Simplu, nu?
“Currency should be backed by assets (not necessarily by gold) and not by debt as it is now”
Interesting information ‘inside’ but what I find really troublesome is how come this information comes to us via Moscow?
Why haven’t I heard about this from an American source?

Nowadays there is a heated debate about how much damage to the nature is acceptable in order for us to have a ‘thriving’ economy.

This way of thinking is very well illustrated by the following picture:Image

The caption says: “If you really think that economy is more important than nature then try holding your breath while counting your money”.

If we look a little deeper into all this we find out that initially economy – or oikonomia in ancient Greek – was the art of managing the resources needed by a household. Since then these resources came directly from the surrounding nature it ‘naturally follows’ that in those times there was no conflict between economy and nature: people took what ever they needed from where it grew or grazed, threw the garbage wherever around the camps and whenever things became too messy or the pastures/hunting grounds were exhausted people moved a little further, giving the nature an opportunity to heal its otherwise superficial wounds.
Later, as people moved into cities, their relationship with the nature became a little more complicated. If nature had a way of renewing itself periodically all went well. Egypt survives since 5000 years ago mainly because the Nile periodically cleanses and fertilizes the country. If not, and people overuses local resources, the fate of that particular civilization is doomed – the Mayan empire, for example.

A sudden change happened around three  hundred years ago: Europeans simultaneously learned advanced agricultural techniques enabling them to feed larger numbers of people, thus freeing a lot of ‘ work force’ that was swiftly employed by the industry, and invented fiat money – paper invested with value by the very entity that ‘printed’ it, the central banks.
‘Economy’ started to thrive only it no longer was about the old struggle for survival; it was gradually transformed into the modern economy: a playing ground where the ruthless fight for more and more money is constantly eating away both natural resources and the moral fiber of those implied in it.

Maybe it is high time for us to understand what is going on and to find a way to reintegrate nature into the economy as a resource that needs to last forever and not as an expendable one.

%d bloggers like this: