exchangeadding page.. while reading this (via p2p foundation fb share): what is money and do we really need it by Tim Jenkin https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/money-really-need/2016/11/18
*exchange is property of life.. ok.. but not measuring it.. tit for tatting it.. that’s not us.. can’t even/ever see the exchange.. not expecting same ness in return.. so .. not exchange by defn above.. **actually..pretty much today.. if there is an exchange.. there is no relationship.. so.. fine statements for both * and **.. just the measuring/validating of the exchange that is messing with us…. actually.. the expecting of an exchange is killer.. so .. (update after reading re imagining value report.. and adding mona lisa smile compare law) – both statements.. not so fine..
assumed to be a top-level concept, a subset of nothing.
The problem with all these different approaches to the origin of money is that they start with the concept of money itself. ‘Money’ is assumed to be universally understood and to have been part of the human story since the beginning of civilisation. As money is considered a top-level concept nothing is used to explain money itself.
Money is actually a concept that is subsumed under the higher-level concept of exchange. Exchange is subsumed under life itself, for *exchange is a property of life and probably of the universe as well. The life of any particular organism cannot be understood or explained adequately without considering its exchange relationships with other organisms. The very word ‘relationship’ implies exchange, for **if there is no exchange of any kind there is no relationship
These (exchange systems) *facilitate the sharing and exchange of energies in the production and distribution of their means of existence by establishing and maintaining relationships in time and space.
All exchange systems involve a number of modes, means and methods of exchange. On top of that, exchange systems consist of customs, conventions and rules that ensure the smooth flow of exchange without members of the society having to plan how to effect each and every transaction and negotiate fresh terms and conditions each time.
exactly what’s robbing the potential of ie: blockchain now.. and what has robbed us for years: the B ness
modes: Reciprocal exchange (gifting) ..Sharing or pooling, ..exchange mediated with commodities or issued, circulating currencies (market exchange)..by record keeping …
means: tools/mechs ..writing, numeracy, accounting, clay tablets, knotted strings, tally sticks, coins, notes, credit cards, ATMs, banks, clearing houses, computer networks, algorithms etc.
methods: sharing, gifting, barter, swaps, commodity exchange, monetary exchange, time exchange, record keeping, mutual credit etc.
All exchange systems provide the following, ..:
- A means to memorise/record contributions/distributions ..
- A means to measure the value ..
- Rules to ensure a balance ..
- Sanctions to prevent imbalances
- Measures to ensure that obligations ..not excessive:
- To prevent freeloading/theft, accumulation of wealth/power
- A means to exchange multilaterally..
- The ability to settle imbalances over a period of time..
- A means to defer claims for a long period (‘store of value’)
- A means to receive credit/go into debit ..
- A means to incrementally reduce large obligations ..
- A means to transfer claims and obligations to others
Class society and states emerged when a certain sector took control of the means of exchange. Since then every exchange system *has been hijacked by the ruling class, using the power of the state to enforce usage of the means of exchange under their control.
or just possibly *never meant to be .. for humans.. for transactions..
to create an exchange system that is under democratic control and functions equally for everyone it would need to have the following features as well:
- Exchange media replaced with information (metric currencies). ..
- Transparency. ..
- Public accounts should be open for inspection
- The means of exchange should not be ownable or controllable..
- While seamless trade with any entity, anywhere should be possible, the focus should be local and the administration of exchange should be decentralised at the community level
- All methods of exchange should be promoted to prevent a monoculture ..
What is commonly referred to as the ‘financial system’ or ‘monetary system’ fits neatly into the above description of an exchange system. This is because these terms are really just inaccurate names for exchange system. Again, the use of these terms assume that all exchange is ‘financial’ or ‘monetary’ and that exchange that is not monetary is not worth considering (i.e. outside ‘the economy’).
when societies become more complex, more involved recording mechanisms are required. Historically this led to the rise of a specialised class of administrators who kept track of inputs and outputs. Since these administrators were in control of the society’s product, they effectively had control over the population. This gave rise to class society
bureaucratic overhead required to manage these societies eventually overwhelmed them and resulted in the adoption of exchange media (‘money’) as the preferred mode of exchange. The usage of exchange media gave rise to markets, which was a much more streamlined way of organising exchange than through centralised warehousing and accounting records.
When exchange and money are presented as a unitary concept then neither the past nor the future can be any different from the present.
i’d say too.. when exchange and measurement..
Medium of exchange does not imply something tangible but it does imply that it has the property of *quantity. Anything that exists in quantity has to be **created, and creation implies a creator.
perhaps.. unless we unleash exchange from measuring ness.. we shouldn’t use the word.. measuring/quantity ness.. is killing us… it’s not us
so quantifying ie: us.. **not natural..
Initially states usurped the role of creating and controlling the supply of the exchange medium as it gave them the most powerful weapon for controlling the population of the area over which the state claimed dominion.
Politics is essentially about who controls the means of exchange.
We are all herded into this singular ‘economy’, which does its best to prevent us escaping by keeping us dependent on money and illegalising non-monetary exchange. ..The fear of descending into poverty (lack of money, not the inability to produce and exchange) keeps us all prisoners.
There is a way out of the ‘money trap’, but it will only be found if the starting point is *exchange and not money.
but only if we disengage from measuring *exchange.. as well
For excellent examples of how metric currencies are being used look at the *Community Exchange System (CES), Community Forge and IntegralCES. These are all linked into a global network permitting inter-trading in a far more efficient way than the clumsy global financial system.
* from site:
community exchange system: Simply by keeping track of who receives what from whom we can dispense with the ancient idea of exchange media and the apparatus required to manage them. This helps us focus on providing and requesting what is really needed instead of **chasing after money.
sounds like **chasing after inspecting ness
community forge: complementary currencies..
integral: social currencies management
Older exchange methods such as gifting, bartering, swapping and sharing have been given a new lease of life, and new exchange methods such as time banking, time exchange, service exchange and information exchange have become truly effective as methods for distributing our energies.
still measuring.. still imply obligation to give/barter/share back
that obligation piece… huge.. to the destruction of us
It is the mode of exchange that shapes societies, not the mode of production.
agree if you don’t measure/manage exchange.. just facilitate it… so share seems a better word.. key.. not expecting a return..
So ultimately the answer to the question “what is money?” is that money is an exchange method that has not served humanity well. It has been used to exploit and enslave and it keeps us in thrall to the tiny minority who control it for their own benefit.
pretty sure that will happen with any measuring/management system.. perhaps we focus more on connection and movement..______ i’d say.. let’s just not use word exchange.. ie: even if we agreed that the return didn’t have to happen visibly/timely… we’d get caught up in measuring/managing.. i mean we do that when we use the words: gift.. share.. so.. whatever. words ness.. .. you know.. what are you gonna do.. ie: no words..? ________ via Erich Fromm‘s to have or to be:
69exchange/compare et al ________ from david graeber‘s debt:
Tertullian (third century) considered all trade to be the result of cupidity, and he denies its necessity among people who are free from greed. He declares that trade always carries with it the danger of idolatry. Avarice (extreme greed for wealth or material gain) he calls the root of all evil.
2152 there are endless variations on this sort of tit for tat or almost tit for tat, gift exchange.. the most familiar is the exchange of presents..tyeah.. oi.. esp on supposed to days.. ie: holiday ness et al – tit for tat ness
the feeling that one really ought to return the favor – can’t be explained by standard econ theory.. which assumes that any human interaction is ultimately a business deal and that we are all self interested individuals trying to get most for selves for least cost/effort.. but this feeling is quite real and it can cause genuine strain for those of limited means trying to keep up appearancesmagis esse quam videri .. brown belonging law.. maté trump law.. et al
2163 things can easily slip into games of one upmanship.. and hence obsession, humiliation, rage,.. or as we’ll soon see, even worse.. in some societies, these games are formalized.. but it’s important to stress that such games only really develop between people or groups who perceive selves to be more/less equiv in status 2175 pierre bourdieu: ‘games of honor in algeria.. in which exchange of insults, attacks (in feud or battles), thefts or threats was seen to follow exactly the same logic as the exchange of gifts.. to give a gift is both an honor/provocation.. to respond requires infinite artistry.. timing is all important.. above all.. is the tacit moral principle that one must always pick on someone one’s own size.. otherwise damage to reputation if snubbed or cruel (giving to someone who can’t respond in like)gift\ness.. exchange ness..
2217 in some contexts.. even praising another’s possession might be interpreted as a demand of this sort (exchange ness).. sometimes gifts offered in order for giver to be able to make such a demand: if one accepts.. is then tacitly agreeing to allow the giver to claim whatever he deems equiv.. w/in communities.. almost always a reluctance.. to allow things to cancel out.. one reason that if money.. people often refuse to use it w friends/relatives.. or.. use it in radically diff ways.._________ marsh exchange law _________