The Money Masters!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wrayer
  • Start date Start date
stellar said:
...and it' value is determined by those who created it to keep themselves in control?

No, the value is determined by those who accept it as payment, as a unit of account and as a store of value. There is great value for all mankind in facilitating the distribution of time and things. Some use the medium of money to steal, until mankind refuses to accept a particular medium of money as credible.
 
There is great value for all mankind in facilitating the distribution of time and things.

here is an interesting view from a person of a different civilization (bolds are mine):

Whilst Finow was yet at the Hapai islands, he often held conversations at his cava parties with Filimoeatoo, respecting the state of affairs at Tonga. Among other things, this chief related, that a ship from Botany Bay had touched there about a week before he arrived, on board of which there was a Tonga chief, Paloo Mata M6ignaT and his wife, Fatafehi, both of whom had formerly left Tonga (before the death of Toogoo Ahoo) and had resided some years at the Fiji islands, from which place they afterwards went along with one Selly (as they pronounced it) or, probably, Selby, an Englishman, in a vessel belonging to Botany Bay, to reside there. At this latter place he and his wife remained about two years, and now, on their return to Tonga, finding the island in such an unsettled state, they choose rather, (notwithstanding the earnest entreaties of their friends) to go back again to Botany Bay.

The account they gave of the English customs at this place, and the treatment they first met with, it may be worth while to mention. The first thing that he and his wife had to do, when they arrived at the governor's house, where they went to reside, was to sweep out a large court yard, and clean down a great pair of stairs; in vain they endeavoured to explain, that in their own country they were chiefs, and, being accustomed to be waited on, were quite unused to such employments: their expostulations were taken no notice of, and work they must. At first their life was so uncomfortable, that they wished to die ; no one seemed to protect them ; all the houses were shut against them ; if they saw any body eating, they were not invited to partake : nothing was to be got without money, of which they could not comprehend the value, nor how this same money was to be obtained in any quantity ; if they asked for it, nobody would give them any, unless they worked for it, and then it was so small in quantity, that they could not get one tenth part of what they wanted with it. One day, whilst sauntering about, the chief fixed his eyes upon a cook's shop, and, seeing several people enter, and others, again, coming out with victuals, he made sure that they were sharing out food, according to the old Tonga fashion, and in he went, glad enough of the occasion, expecting to get some pork; after waiting some time, with anxiety to be helped to his share, the master of the shop asked him what he wanted, and, being answered in an unknown language, straightway kicked him out, taking him for a thief, that only wanted an opportunity to steal.

Thus, he said, even being a chief did not prevent him being used ill, for, when he told them ke was a chief, they gave him to understand, that money made a man a chief. After a time, however, he acknowledged that he got better used, in proportion as he became acquainted with the customs and language. He expressed his astonishment at the perfeverence with which the white people worked from morning till night, to get money: he could not conceive how they were able to endure so much labour.

After having heard this account, Finow asked several question* respecting the nature of money: what is it made of ?—is it like iron ? can it be fashioned like iron into various useful instruments ? if not, why cannot people procure what they want in the way of barter?—but where is money to be got ?—if it be made, then every man ought to spend his time in making money; that when he ha* got plenty, he may be able afterwards to obtain whatever else he wants. In answer to the last observation, Mr. Mariner replied that the material of which money was made was very scarce and difficult to be got, and that only chiefs and great men could procure readily a large quantity of it; and this either by being inheritors of plantations or houses, which they allowed others to have, for paying them so much tribute in money every year ; or by their public services; or by paying small sums of money for things when they were in plenty, and afterwards letting others have them for larger sums, when they were scarce : and as to the lower classes of people, they worked hard, and got paid by their employers in small quantities of money, as the reward of their labour, &c. That the king was the only person that was allowed to make (to coin) money, and that he put his mark upon all that he made, that it might be known to be true ; that no person could readily procure the material of which it was made, without paying money for it; and if contrary to the taboo of the king, he turned this material into money, he would scarcely_have made as much as he had given for it.

Mr. Mariner was then going on to shew the convenience of money as a medium of exchange, when Filimoeatoo interrupted him saying to Finow, I understand how it is;—money is less cumbersome than goods, and it is very convenient for a man to exchange away his goods for money ; which, at any other time, he can exchange again for the same or any other goods that he may want; whereas the goods themselves may perhaps spoil by keeping, (particularly if provisions) but the money he supposed would not spoil; and although it was of no true value itself, yet being scarce and difficult to be got without giving something useful and really valuable for it, it was imagined to be of value ; and if every body considered it so, and would readily give their goods for it, he did not see but what it was of a sort of real value to all who possessed it, as long as their neighbours chose to take it in the same way. Mr; Mariner found he could not give a better explanation, he therefore told Filimoeatoo that his notion of the nature of money was a just one.

After a pause of some length, Finow replied that the explanation did not satisfy him : he still thought it a foolish thing that people should place a value on money, when they either could not or would not apply it to any useful (physical) purpose: "If," said he, "it were made of iron, and could be converted into knives, axes, and chissels, there would be some sense in placing a value on it; but as it is, I see none : if a man," he added, " has more yams than he wants, let him exchange some of them away for pork or gnatoo ; certainly money is much handier, and more convenient, but then as it will not spoil by being kept, people will store it up, instead of sharing it out, as a chief ought to do, and thus become selfish ; whereas, if provision were the principal property of a man, and it ought to be, as being both the most useful and the most necessary, he could not store it up, for it would spoil, and so he would be obliged either to exchange it away for something else useful, or share it out to his neighbours, and inferior chiefs and dependants^ for nothing." He concluded by saying, "I understand now very well what it is that makes the Papalangis so selfish—it is this money!"

http://books.google.com/books?id=8HlCAAAAcAAJ&dq=An%20account%20of%20the%20natives%20of%20the%20Tonga%20islands&hl=ru&pg=PA166#v=onepage&q=money&f=false
 
I can't explain this very well but I think that it was time that was stolen from us and replaced by money.
We're selling our time in exchange for money. Time that could be spend with our families, to undertake creative research, to play, to work as well of course.
Focus on the money to forget what you're really losing and think about what you'll be able to buy tomorrow, sometimes just out of sheer necessity because you can't afford to live without money :|
My two cents.
 
Hildegarda, thanks for that interesting glimpse into a tribal mind. Things haven’t changed much since the chief found his status(money) worthless in Botany Bay. Today many feel entitled to things they value because of their status. Self importance is not a new feature of the human psyche.
The chief experienced a “currency collapse” when he expected to exchange his status(money) as chief for servants and pork. The English just didn’t accept his status(money) as chief as containing any value. Were they selfish? Probably-but it wasn’t money that made them so, anymore than a getaway car makes a man a bank robber.
 
Tigersoap said:
I can't explain this very well but I think that it was time that was stolen from us and replaced by money.
We're selling our time in exchange for money. Time that could be spend with our families, to undertake creative research, to play, to work as well of course.
Focus on the money to forget what you're really losing and think about what you'll be able to buy tomorrow, sometimes just out of sheer necessity because you can't afford to live without money :|
My two cents.

We are exchanging our time for things we value. Money facilitates the exchange. We are not working for money, but for what money buys.
We have a sense we are being robbed, but it isn't money that is robbing us. The money system of distribution of time and things has great benefit for you, can you imagine having to barter or gift the necessities of life in this age. Impossible.

The state decrees legal tender, which is the only permitted money in its realm. The state uses coercion to enforce its legal tender laws, so violence is ultimately the method of stealing. We hear the cliche that money is the "root of all evil", but that is propaganda to keep blame from being properly placed on elites who abuse the use of money. It is elites(psychopaths) who are guilty of abusing money and spreading confusion about where the fault lies. It is not money that is the problem, but vampire oligarchs. We need money to make life's energy flow where it is valued.
 
Tigersoap said:
I can't explain this very well but I think that it was time that was stolen from us and replaced by money.
We're selling our time in exchange for money.

It's not so much time itself as well as the energy spent during that time. That's why Laura more or less equated money with energy in her initial post at the beginning of this thread. The energy people spend is of a different value according to the prevailing valuation systems within a given society. Money is just the means whereby these values are expressed by pricing them.

It's an old adage of Marx that the value of a thing (or the energy spent to produce it) isn't exactly the same as the price offered for it. Those familiar with the Bible (NT) are aware of the parable of the hired hands of the eleventh hour who got paid the same wages as those who had worked all day - and the resentment this brought about. Just to give a poignant example of an inverse kind...

As for the "...glimpse into a tribal mind..." as go2 put it - I was more struck by the fact that this chief remembered something about the origin of money. In tribal societies the function of a chief (among other tasks) consists of metering out a (re)distribution of common wealth. When this wealth has the form of goods that can get spoiled over time it is paramount that it will be consumed in time before the spoiling can happen. There is a big hospitality issue behind this notion (as discussed in the Odyssey thread).

Hildegarda/googlebooks said:
certainly money is much handier, and more convenient, but then as it will not spoil by being kept, people will store it up, instead of sharing it out, as a chief ought to do, and thus become selfish ; whereas, if provision were the principal property of a man, and it ought to be, as being both the most useful and the most necessary, he could not store it up, for it would spoil, and so he would be obliged either to exchange it away for something else useful, or share it out to his neighbours, and inferior chiefs and dependants^ for nothing."

The problem with money starts with hoarding it. When it amasses into great amounts it can either be wasted in wars or in conspicuous consumption of court life or invested in prestigious building programs or in conquering 'space' - or it can be set to work via entrepreneurial endeavors of any kind as long as those bring in profits.
From then on it's no longer money - it has become capital. And capital is a whole other cattle of fish than money as most of us are well aware...fwiw.
 
SOTT published an interview with David Graeber: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234868-Debt-Came-Before-Money-An-Interview-with-Economic-Anthropologist-David-Graeber


Hildegarda said:
I guess the old barter system was ponerised to give worthless 'currency' for something real/physical.


I haven't read it yet, but some online friends highly recommended the book "Debt" by David Graeber,

_http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316619790&sr=8-1

Amazon intro:

Every economics textbook says the same thing: Money was invented to replace onerous and complicated barter systems—to relieve ancient people from having to haul their goods to market. The problem with this version of history? There’s not a shred of evidence to support it.

Here anthropologist David Graeber presents a stunning reversal of conventional wisdom. He shows that for more than 5,000 years, since the beginnings of the first agrarian empires, humans have used elaborate credit systems to buy and sell goods—that is, long before the invention of coins or cash. It is in this era, Graeber argues, that we also first encounter a society divided into debtors and creditors.

Graeber shows that arguments about debt and debt forgiveness have been at the center of political debates from Italy to China, as well as sparking innumerable insurrections. He also brilliantly demonstrates that the language of the ancient works of law and religion (words like “guilt,” “sin,” and “redemption”) derive in large part from ancient debates about debt, and shape even our most basic ideas of right and wrong. We are still fighting these battles today without knowing it.

He says, among other things, that coins were invented to easily pay mercenary armies.
 
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/234868-Debt-Came-Before-Money-An-Interview-with-Economic-Anthropologist-David-Graeber said:
Since antiquity the worst-case scenario that everyone felt would lead to total social breakdown was a major debt crisis; ordinary people would become so indebted to the top one or two percent of the population that they would start selling family members into slavery, or eventually, even themselves.

Well, what happened this time around? Instead of creating some sort of overarching institution to protect debtors, they create these grandiose, world-scale institutions like the IMF or S&P to protect creditors. They essentially declare (in defiance of all traditional economic logic) that no debtor should ever be allowed to default. Needless to say the result is catastrophic. We are experiencing something that to me, at least, looks exactly like what the ancients were most afraid of: a population of debtors skating at the edge of disaster.

And, I might add, if Aristotle were around today, I very much doubt he would think that the distinction between renting yourself or members of your family out to work and selling yourself or members of your family to work was more than a legal nicety. He'd probably conclude that most Americans were, for all intents and purposes, slaves.

David Graeber is concerned that debtors are being abused by creditors. He ignores the facts of debt, conveniently for his sovereign. The largest debtors on the planet are governments who borrow vast sums to prosecute wars or reward political favorites. David Graeber is typical of the intelligentsia who conceal vast crimes behind their public display of empathy for the poor(debtors). It is a lie small debtors prefer not to notice either, as their small benefit conceals the government’s crimes.

Who are the dastardly creditors? It is the working men and women who are forced to save in government approved roach motel pension arrangements, the more convenient to steal and redistribute the energy of producers to their friends and accomplices. The banking class favors debtors as well, in their role of transferring wealth from savors to debtors. The banking class prospers when the debt boom is at mathematical and political extremes. Bureaucrats, academics, and bankers thrive at the intersection of redistribution from savors to debtors.

So, it seems the truth is turned on its head as debtors are fleecing savors using the coercive legal and police apparatus of the modern state, rather than the other way around as mythologized by David Graeber. I see the modern state as an incarnation of the “chief” or “king” whose hereditary status privileged him to redistribute human energy where he chose. I suspect many “chiefs” or “kings” abused their power of the purse, no doubt seeing their privilege as a public good. Money is impartial, at least in theory; human nature is not.
 
I disagree, go2. When you look at government debt, who lends to governments? Central banks which are owned by the super super rich. Not ordinary savers of which there are fewer and fewer when you factor in home mortgages. I think Graeber is spot on in his analysis.
 
I cannot find an old SOTT article about a story how banking started from barter. 'Twas a jeweler, I believe, that had an idea of common currency and how the bankster came into the world. That was an excellent story I sent to a whole mess of people in finance. Which many did enjoy by the way. The article was named something like : The world for 5% : or something like that. Perhaps some people on this thread may get something from that article if I could only find it. Any help digging it up is appreciated if you also think that article is worthwhile...
 
Al Today said:
I cannot find an old SOTT article about a story how banking started from barter. 'Twas a jeweler, I believe, that had an idea of common currency and how the bankster came into the world. That was an excellent story I sent to a whole mess of people in finance. Which many did enjoy by the way. The article was named something like : The world for 5% : or something like that. Perhaps some people on this thread may get something from that article if I could only find it. Any help digging it up is appreciated if you also think that article is worthwhile...

One of Graeber's main points is that barter as the original method of exchange is a capitalist myth. They have found no primitive culture that bartered.'that was never how exchange happened. It happened through gift exchange. Barter only happens when a money based society's money system broke down.
 
I have not read any of Graeber's books, but I did find this:
I would think debit/credit principles are capitalistic accounting.

http://mhpbooks.com/book.php?id=308

Debt
The First 5,000 Years
David Graeber

Before there was money, there was debt

Every economics textbook says the same thing: Money was invented to replace onerous and complicated barter system--to relieve ancient people from having to haul their goods to market. The problem with this version of history? There's not a shred of evidence to support it.

Here anthropologist David Graeber presents a stunning reversal of conventional wisdom. He shows that for more than 5,000 years, since the beginning of the agrarian empires, humans have used elaborate credit systems. It is in this era, Graeber shows, that we also first encounter a society divided into debtors and creditors.

With the passage of time, however, virtual credit money was replaced by gold and silver coins--and the system as a whole began to decline. Interest rates spiked and the indebted became slaves. And the system perpetuated itself with tremendously violent consequences, with only the rare intervention of kings and churches keeping the system from spiraling out of control. Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a fascinating chronicle of this little known history--as well as how it has defined human history, and what it means for the credit crisis of the present day and the future of our economy.
 
While we're on the subject of money, in a world of magic spells is it just a coincidence ;) that the word forms part of the word harmony? Harmony, just perhaps is really "our money". Leading on to the word currency, that hides the clue "current (now) see". :P
 
Mr. Premise said:
I disagree, go2. When you look at government debt, who lends to governments? Central banks which are owned by the super super rich. Not ordinary savers of which there are fewer and fewer when you factor in home mortgages. I think Graeber is spot on in his analysis.

Central Bank credit and government debt is a partnership between oligarch bankers and government bureaucrats to fleece the savors who are forced to become creditors for government debt. The difference is the origin of credit of the Central Bank and the origin of credit of a savor who must labor to earn. The Central Bank USD fiat is essentially free to the bank, so you cannot think they are worried about the value of the US government debt they buy. No, they will buy all debt for cash they create by privilege of their charter. They buy debt for cash to keep the imploding debt system going for a little longer, as baby boomer savors still have savings plans and pension promises to pay which have value to transfer to bureaucrats and banker oligarchs.

What is the asset of a Central Bank? It has a government chartered monopoly to create money with a ledger entry or the printing press. How convenient for government, which desires to issue debt secured by taxing citizens(slaves) of the state to finance deficit spending for war and redistribution. Why is the Central Bank privately owned? Doesn’t the government trust itself to create debt money? Well, could it be a few oligarchs corrupted the interests of the government of the people, by the people, and for the people? A nice circular arrangement exists between the US government and the Federal Reserve Bank.

Why do the people tolerate this state of affairs? Do they want freedom from responsibility? The government promises security from the cradle to the grave for their consent. The government delivers lunch by spending money taxed or borrowed from producers. Now, the Central Bank creates debt money to purchase government debt when taxes are not sufficient to pay for war and redistribution. The debt purchased by the Central Bank devalues the unit of account of citizen’s USD denominated savings. Real savors are indeed an endangered species with tax and devaluation stealing their labor and knowledge. The credit-debt system is one of human sacrifice.

I need to make a clear distinction between savors who are forced to become creditors by government regulation of private and public pension funds and the Central Bank creditor whose asset is fiat. The nefarious partnership of state and bank maintain privilege of status and power. Isn’t this the same privilege of the Tonga chief? Trust and credibility underlies the origin of hierarchy and hierarchy’s vulnerability to abuse in the complex world where strangers manage our affairs. The tribal members knew the chief intimately. He could be trusted to be responsible for gifting goods and services to the right persons. Yea, he was a noble savage. Idealism is a modern manifestation of the evolution of trust in the human psyche in tribal society. Our fellows trust the government to protect them from banker when in reality the bureaucrat and banker are partners in crime. I could even argue that citizen slaves are partners since they forfeit responsibility for security and sloth by extending legitimacy of the vote to the partnership of government and bankers.

I will leave this with one last though on the super rich and their assets. The super rich do not hold USD debt as an asset. They are the house. They take their percentage and buy gold, paid for real estate, and paid for producing assets. They know the creditor-debtor system has a limited time-line and when it dies they will start another creditor-debtor system to fleece another couple of generations of citizen slaves. David Graeber’s debtor- creditor premise is false because it hides a bigger truth. It is like the premise that we have a choice between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, when we know them as two faces of the same Devil.

Mr. Premise, I think we are close in our understanding of the credit-debt game and my only objection to David Graeber’s analysis is the premise that creditors and debtors are the whole picture. His analysis of the current effort by the Central Banks to stop the implosion of the debt-credit system is shallow. The relationship of creditors and debtors is symbiotic, not parasitic. The parasitism is the system which facilitates the relationship of creditors and debtors in their fleecing producer-savors.
 
I think the source of the problem is actually simple. We use a central banking system worldwide, where private for profit bankers control sovereign money supplies and policy. They were given control of the whole cookie jar, and they're greedy little bastards. How much money is enough for the greedy? No upper limit. As Bill Stlll says in Secret of Oz, it does not matter what backs your money (gold or fiat promises), just who controls the supply. The public good and private profit will always be at odds.
 
Back
Top Bottom