What is money, really?

[SpacePete]

Random question of the day....

In its current form, what is money? Not its overt function, that being a medium of exchange, a unit of account or a store of value. Not its use as a means of advancing a geopolitical agenda or as a weapon. Not its utility as a means oppression and control. What is its true form? What is it really?

Anyone have an opinion?

Is money debt?

Is money information?

Is money an arbitrary means of exchange?

Is money "Just A Symbolic, Mutually Shared Illusion"?

Is money memory, with bitcoin being the closest to this concept so far?

Or, from the Peak Prosperity crash course, Money is a claim on human labor (http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse/chapter-6-what-money)

Or is money simply an idea, not a thing, a system defined purely by interaction and agreement amongst people?

 

[bordsilver]

In its current form, what is money? Not its overt function, that being a medium of exchange, a unit of account or a store of value.

Why exclude a bunch of elements that define money?

How about "money is an aid for trust amongst strangers" ?

 

[wrcmad]

I consider money a shared and exchangeable unit measurement of the productiveness of human labour.

 

[SpacePete]

In its current form, what is money? Not its overt function, that being a medium of exchange, a unit of account or a store of value.

Why exclude a bunch of elements that define money?

I excluded the various functions of money, what it is commonly used for. But maybe money is nothing more than the sum of its functions and it is simply economic masturbation to argue that there is anything more fundamental or abstract to the definition of money.

How about "money is an aid for trust amongst strangers" ?

Money, or more specifically, fiat currencies require trust but I don't know if money aids trust.

 

[SpacePete]

I consider money a shared and exchangeable unit measurement of the productiveness of human labour.

Interesting, I hadn't considered that one. Added a link to my comment above for some info I found on the Peak Prosperity website.

 

[ego2spare]

money is whatever the majority of the people of earth say it is. Cash. Government currency is money.

 

[hawkeye]

You actually think about it and realise it's quite hard to define, isn't it? I know what it isn't. It isn't gold as some like to suggest. Gold has just been the best medium for much of human history for the concept of money.

wrcmad is pretty close I think. I think it is loosely an abstract form of energy. A way for it to be harnessed and traded.

 

[Pirocco]

If you never wondered what money is, this is a text that quickly gives an idea:
http://mises.org/money.asp
And you may not like what you read.
I didn't.

 

[Ag bullet]

I consider money a shared and exchangeable unit measurement of the productiveness of human labour.

like our national anthem- "wealth for toil" we toil and the government gets wealthy.

 

[bordsilver]

I consider money a shared and exchangeable unit measurement of the productiveness of human labour.

Interesting, I hadn't considered that one. Added a link to my comment above for some info I found on the Peak Prosperity website.

To me, saying it's a claim on human labour or that it is a measure of the productiveness of human labour masks the movements in exchange value or the importance of non-labour goods. It is a current price put on past effort (or gifted property). If anything, it conveys information about the past labour productivity in light of current circumstances.

At the end of the day, money is a good that provides a service. The service it provides is to simplify the making of a contract that allows a claim in the current property held by one entity to be transferred to another entity. This includes "renting" the services of another person's body (to fix a leaky tap or make them a coffee for example). The value of such a contract changes based on supply, demand etc. Unless the money is a consumable item, the seller accepts the money in the hope/expectation that it will allow them to exchange it at a future date for good/services of greater value than the goods/services they currently possess (or to extinguish a past debt).

The "price" is simply the valuation of non-money in terms of money. It is certainly not constant although it may seem stable over a particular period of time. What is valuable this year may not be valuable the next, for example.

How about "money is an aid for trust amongst strangers" ?

Money, or more specifically, fiat currencies require trust but I don't know if money aids trust.

Yes, the hope/expectation element means that a level of trust is required in the money medium. I was thinking of the willingness to trade (particularly remotely) being increased because of money. In a physical barter I want to either inspect or have trust that the quality of the goods is as expected. With a money trade I can ignore whether half of your apples in the barrel are poor quality and trade my stuff for your money and go buy apples from someone I trust and you can sell your apples to someone that trusts you. Hence, the use of money facilitates a trade with you even though I don't know whether I can trust your goods. [Note this whole line was because you had specifically said to ignore the physical elements of money.}

 

[systematic]

I consider money a shared and exchangeable unit measurement of the productiveness of human labour.

This is how it should be, but since we are living in a corrupt system with most people thinking work is about sitting on their arses in a chair...

 

[wrcmad]

I consider money a shared and exchangeable unit measurement of the productiveness of human labour.

Interesting, I hadn't considered that one. Added a link to my comment above for some info I found on the Peak Prosperity website.

To me, saying it's a claim on human labour or that it is a measure of the productiveness of human labour masks the movements in exchange value or the importance of non-labour goods. It is a current price put on past effort (or gifted property). If anything, it conveys information about the past labour productivity in light of current circumstances.

At the end of the day, money is a good that provides a service. The service it provides is to simplify the making of a contract that allows a claim in the current property held by one entity to be transferred to another entity. This includes "renting" the services of another person's body (to fix a leaky tap or make them a coffee for example). The value of such a contract changes based on supply, demand etc. Unless the money is a consumable item, the seller accepts the money in the hope/expectation that it will allow them to exchange it at a future date for good/services of greater value than the goods/services they currently possess (or to extinguish a past debt).

The "price" is simply the valuation of non-money in terms of money. It is certainly not constant although it may seem stable over a particular period of time. What is valuable this year may not be valuable the next, for example.

You got me thinking.
While I agree with some of the above, my thinking is a little different.
My context of 'productive labour' is not just that of sweat and toil, or pick and shovel. It is ultimately a measurement of "productive time/effort". You elude to this too. Thus, "service labour" is included in this context.
For any service labour to be offered, there is usually some sort of setup/infrastructure/capital investment/education behind it - also able to be quantified in "productive labour". So I am a little baffled of what would constitute a "non-labour good"? (except land grants. However, land is easily quantified in the secondary market for land/RE.)

I disagree that "price" is simply the value of non-money in terms of money. While price can fluctuate with demand, this just reinforces the idea that money is a unit measurement of productive labour - ie. filling demand where necessary becomes a more productive use of time, and therefore is worth more money per unit value.

IMHO, the movements in exchange value (between currencies) are ultimately a measure (or a measure of the perception) of the collective productiveness of the citizens of a particular nation, with respect to another. So this concept is also encapsulated by these exchange rates.

While money does provide the services you mention, such as simplifying contracts etc., its ability to do so is a consequence of the common reference, or base-line unit measure of productive labour, rather than a good produced to provide these services.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Maxwell]

Money is merely a medium that allows me to make purchases that I would consider real wealth.

I work to earn "fiat/money/cowrie shells/tulip bulbs/shrunken skulls" whatever

I simply trade my labour and skills for a state decreed fiat mechanism. then take that 'money' and use it as a medium of exchange to purchase items I believe have intrinsic value, even if they are only valubale to me.

It's a mechanism I use to take stress from my life, in a roundabout sort of way

 

[wrcmad]

I consider money a shared and exchangeable unit measurement of the productiveness of human labour.

This is how it should be, but since we are living in a corrupt system with most people thinking work is about sitting on their arses in a chair...

The most productive labour does not necessarily mean the labour that makes you sweat the most.

 

[systematic]

I consider money a shared and exchangeable unit measurement of the productiveness of human labour.

This is how it should be, but since we are living in a corrupt system with most people thinking work is about sitting on their arses in a chair...

The most productive labour does not necessarily mean the labour that makes you sweat the most.

If people were stranded on a deserted island the guy sitting in a chair would be the first person to go.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

This is how it should be, but since we are living in a corrupt system with most people thinking work is about sitting on their arses in a chair...

The most productive labour does not necessarily mean the labour that makes you sweat the most.

If people were stranded on a deserted island the guy sitting in a chair would be the first person to go.

except if he held the only gun.

 

[bordsilver]

The most productive labour does not necessarily mean the labour that makes you sweat the most.

If people were stranded on a deserted island the guy sitting in a chair would be the first person to go.

except if he held the only gun.

Or if he knew how to design efficient practices or tools in an hour which made everybody else's life far easier.

 

[bordsilver]

Money is merely a medium that allows me to make purchases that I would consider real wealth.

I work to earn "fiat/money/cowrie shells/tulip bulbs/shrunken skulls" whatever

I simply trade my labour and skills for a state decreed fiat mechanism. then take that 'money' and use it as a medium of exchange to purchase items I believe have intrinsic value, even if they are only valubale to me.

It's a mechanism I use to take stress from my life, in a roundabout sort of way

See, money is a good providing a service

 

[systematic]

The most productive labour does not necessarily mean the labour that makes you sweat the most.

If people were stranded on a deserted island the guy sitting in a chair would be the first person to go.

except if he held the only gun.

He would need one ...

 

[systematic]

If people were stranded on a deserted island the guy sitting in a chair would be the first person to go.

except if he held the only gun.

Or if he knew how to design efficient practices or tools in an hour which made everybody else's life far easier.

That' a very Wall Street view ....