What is money?

Zolodoco's picture

[Welcome, Crooks and Liars readers! -- lambert]

In case anyone might interested, This week's This American Life: "The Invention of Money".

The nature of money is clearly important to any discussion about national debt, so I thought some here might appreciate the link, given recent blog posts. However, my personal interest in the topic is rooted in what should we, as individuals, do with savings. Leave it in currency form, or use it on skill development, property, a part-time business, livestock--something more substantial than currency?

UPDATE For readers who come here from C&L, welcome again. I want to add this note to Zolodoco's post because there's been more discussion on the question "What is money?" here. First, at the Fiscal Sustainabilty conference that Correntians helped organize, Stephanie Kelton from the economics department at UMKC wrote this; it's lengthy, but not technical, and very revealing:

What we didn’t do, I guess, a lot of this morning is really to talk about money, and what is money. And, while there were some references to accounting, and blips on a screen and button pushing and so forth, we didn’t really distinguish what we’re talking about in Modern Money Theory from what most of the textbooks describe and what our students end up getting taught in most economics programs across the globe. [00:03:27]

When you open up an economics textbook, and you turn to the page that begins to talk about money, inevitably you find a story that begins with something about barter; and ‘once upon a time’ man trucked his wares to the local trading venue because he’s preprogrammed to truck barter in exchange, as Adam Smith told us, and there was no currency around. So you had to lug your clay pots and your shoes and your fish and whatever else you may have specialized in the production of, down to some local trading venue, where the only way the exchange could take place is if you happen to come upon the person who not only had what you wanted, but wanted what you had. [00:04:10]

Economists refer to that as the double coincidence of wants. And so, barter is this clumsy system for conducting exchange and, so the story goes, man suddenly decided – hey there must be a better way to organize – we should really think about finding some Thing that would be universally accepted. And, lo and behold, they hit on money, primitive forms of money first. The textbooks tell stories of things like pebbles and shells and feathers and beads and all of that, and later discovering money things like precious metals, which had nice properties that fish and other commodity monies didn’t have, in that they would serve as a good store of value, they were easily divisible, they were portable – you put your coins in your pocket and go conduct your exchange. [00:04:58]

But, the story is always told that this somehow happened spontaneously. The private sector figures out that there’s a more efficient way to conduct exchange. They choose to use money. They decide what money is. And this all happens without imposition from any authority, no state, nothing like that. So the money is stateless. And, then of course, over time, money evolves (I’m still in the textbook story) from things like primitive money to gold and then to paper with gold backing. People take paper in exchange for real goods and services and the argument is – well, but at the end of the day, it’s as good as gold. So they continue to accept the paper. [00:05:42]

Then the story gets more difficult to explain, for this group. Sometimes we call them the Metalists because, when you have a pure fiat money system, why do people accept currency, that is intrinsically worthless, backed by nothing of value, and yet people will beg, borrow, steal, toil away the day, in order to get these otherwise worthless pieces of paper? [00:06:05]

And so, what we like, what we prefer, is the story that’s been dubbed, or the approach that’s been dubbed Modern Money Theory, which traces the nature and origin of money to the early authorities. Randy has written a lot about this in his, ‘Understanding Modern Money’ book, from the early temples and later to the nation states and we could go on and on about this, but that’s not what I want to do. But, it does trace the origin and nature of money to some power authority; that is, the money does not emerge spontaneously by the will of the people, but it is imposed on them. [00:06:43]

How is it imposed on them? It is dictated by the authority. It is chosen. The authority establishes that you all must pay something to me. I define the unit of account. In the United States, the unit of account is the dollar. So I say in what unit you must pay obligations to me and then I tell you what you have to do to eliminate those debts. And so, I impose a tax liability on you. I make you indebted to me. Now you need to do something to eliminate your obligation to me. And I tell you how you can do that. In the United States, you can earn dollars. You pay your tax obligation to the state in U.S. dollars. That gives value to the government’s otherwise worthless pieces of paper, and allows them to move real resources from the private to the public domain. [00:07:34]

So we have a very clear way to answer the question ‘Why is fiat money accepted?’, whereas our textbook counterparts have some difficulty with that.

And Warren Mosler offers the following thought experiment, which simplifies the above and shows these ideas working in the real world. "How to turn litter into money":

[00:00:00] I take my business cards out here, and these are twenty dollars apiece if anybody wants to buy any. Nope. Any takers? Nope. All right, if anybody wants to stay after and help clean up the carpet and tidy up the room, I'm going to pay one per hour. All right, well, five per hour. One per hour, anybody want to stay and help? Ok, not a lot of takers. Then I add one more thing, look, there's only one way out of here, and there's a man at the door with a nine-millimeter machine gun [laughter], ok, and you can't get out of here without five of my cards. [laughter] Ok, now things have changed. I've now turned litter into money, now you will buy these, you will work for these things if you want to get out. The man at the door is the tax man, and that's the function of taxes. Stephanie talked about how taxes do it. But you can recreate that.

Mosler goes on to extend that parable to how the national debt really works. Please bear these ideas in mind when Obama's calling for sacrifice in the SOTU, and ask yourself who's sacrificing, and why.

See also here for "Money is a spreadsheet" (as Bernanke admits), and that since the dollar is created under the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the dollar is also, by definition, created by the sovereign people for a public purpose. --lambert]

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CMike's picture

Thanks for the link

The two segments of the episode covered a lot of territory and some of the specifics in that Brazil story were new to me.

I gotta say it was offensive to hear at the outset that those five people, who in late 2008 who were "independently" asking themselves for the first time the question "what is money," were all people who were getting paid "to cover economics" for This American Life "and NPR News as part of the Planet Money Project." It seems we really have enshrined FAIL as the elite standard these days.

Maybe it's just me, but invariably in an introductory presentation, the ongoing wide-eyed incredulity by the narrator about how a fiat money system works becomes wearing after a short while. It may be surprising to people when they first hear about it but it is not all that difficult of an explanation to grasp once it is laid out. And I don't think it is useful or accurate to refer to the ordinary operations of the Fed as magic. It's sort of supposed to be rather formulaic.

However, once you get into Quantitative Easing I do think tricks are being played and the money is being conjured up. The discussion of QE 1 at the end of the broadcast bordered on journalistic malpractice. There was no hint to the listener that certain interests, and ultimately a select class of people, were not only rescued by the Fed's intervention but they have ended up with a financial windfall from QE 1 that the vast majority missed out on.

(Not that anyone can do much more than guess these days but, in order to answer your question about what an individual should do with their savings, it would depend on their age, their income, the amount of their savings, their family responsibilities, etc. Paul Krugman still warns of the possibility of deflation, Peter Shiff of the certainty of inflation.

The most conservative thing out there besides an FDIC account is probably something like Vanguard's Ginne Mae fund, though its price has been falling lately. Something with some upside potential in the coming two to three years, especially if there's some inflation, might be Vanguard's Energy Fund though it's got a high minimum buy-in relative to a lot of other funds and you might be better off diversifying among different sectors if you're thinking of mutual funds.

Try to be and stay debt and contract free. Keep yourself in shape. Drop in for those free Home Depot clinics on home repair and improvement. Be on good terms with your neighbors.)

jm's picture

"The discussion of QE 1 at

"The discussion of QE 1 at the end of the broadcast bordered on journalistic malpractice."

There's no bordering about it, this part of the broadcast was a full scale incursion into journalistic malpractice. It was first aired back in August. In explaining quantitative easing the reporter said, rightly, that money is created out of thin air. Nineteen days earlier, in this story, the same reporter, in explaining deficit spending, said you can't create money out of thin air, it has to be borrowed.

So, money for fiscal expansion has to be borrowed, but money for monetary expansion can be created out of thin air. I see. What could possibly be the unifying principle here? Maybe, that in both cases banksters disproportionately benefit by extracting rents, either through brokering fees or through access to no interest money that can then be re-lent at a tidy profit. As lambert puts it, "MMT for thee, but not for me".

It would also have been helpful, by way of context, for Planet Money, and all other economic reporters for that matter, to occasionally and explicitly point out that the Federal Reserve is literally owned by its member banks.

With pretty much everything produced by NPR News, it is in listeners' best interest to have their skepticism dial turned up to eleven at all times.

Zolodoco's picture

Lest I leave any room for

Lest I leave any room for confusion on this point, I don't endorse anything stated in the broadcast. I think it's worth discussing obviously. I'm reading around and using some of our archived posts to appraise the picture of the Fed given through the interviews. Ron Paul as the dissenting view point isn't really what I was hoping for either.

My judgement of NPR has only gotten worse since the Alito hearings, but I still tend to enjoy listening to Ira Glass. When they air news, however, I'm quick to find something else on the radio. I took a lot of things at face value when I was much younger, NPR included, so I can't say that they've ever been a bastion of consistency or intelligent reporting.

Zolodoco's picture

You're totally right; how are

You're totally right; how are financial reporters surprised that money is conceptual? The show starts off well with the segments about Yap and Brazil, but then maybe spends too much of the remaining time on the Fed. Considering the size of the topic, I would have liked a little more variety. Or they could have narrowed it down and devoted the whole show to the Fed.

The take away message for me is that we need to live in a dual-currency world where value is stored in both a common currency and in our life-styles, skills, and communities. Brazil's inflation sounds like a case where the community starts to fail because it's tied too strongly to the currency. Likewise with our financial crisis. I can't help but explore this idea within the context of sustainable living and the notion that healthy economies shouldn't fixate on growth. I'd love to elaborate on that, but I'll sound like an idiot; give me several more years.

letsgetitdone's picture

Randy Wray

has a new paper out entitled Money. It will give you a better understanding than the broadcast.

Tony Wikrent's picture

Ohhh, thanks for that link!

I'd have missed it otherwise.

Help the hamsters with their winter heating bill ...

… as they power the wheels that turn the servers at The Mighty Corrente Building. Please, won’t you help them keep their cages shiny?

No PayPal Account required! Give the hamsters immediate relief!

Or Subscribe to make a monthly payment!

Corrente is completely supported by contributions from readers. Thank you!

Download Citibank Plutonomy files

Part 1 [PDF]

Part 2 [PDF]

Good reading! Favorite quote: What could go wrong?
Beyond war, inflation, the end of the technology/productivity wave, and financial collapse, we think the most potent and short-term threat would be societies demanding a more ‘equitable’ share of wealth.

The 12 Word Platform

1. Medicare for All

2. End the Wars

3. Tax the Rich

4. A Jobs Guarantee

Senior fellows of The Mighty Corrente Building

Leah (CA), Lambert (PA/ME), RDF (??), BDBlue (DC), Hipparchia (FL), MsExPat (NY), letsgetitdone (DC), twig (LA), Tony Wikrent, (NC), jawbone (PA).

Corresponding fellows

danps.

Western Coordinator

coyotecreek

Correspondents

Health care reform: DCBlogger.

Fellows emeritus

mjs, Riggsveda, Tresy, Tom, hekebolos, chicagodyke, shystee, and Xenophon, Vastleft (MA), Sarah (TX).

Random term

1. The assumption that competing sides, especially political parties, are equally extreme, equally guilty, etc. 2. Treating a dubious position as arguably equivalent to a legitimate one. (Vast Left)

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Americans United is dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.