iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robin Koerner

GET UPDATES FROM Robin Koerner
 

Sell Illusion, Purchase Reality: Currency as a Cultural Conceit

Posted: 06/02/11 02:37 PM ET

In the USA, we use Federal Reserve Notes or "dollar bills" not only because their use is imposed on us by force of law, but also because we have a collective memory, built up over generations, of goods' having "always" been exchangeable for these dollars and that, to a reasonable approximation, a certain number of dollars buys a particular amount of some real good or service. Just as the sun has come up every day and dollars have bought things every day, we don't just believe that the sun will come up tomorrow and that dollars will buy things tomorrow: we positively know it.

We "know" it despite the fact that the government erodes the value of our currency a bit every year. (In fact, it has been eroded by 97% since the USA came off the gold standard in 1971, when the dollar became technically worthless, but remained useful as the only means of payment of debt based on pain of imprisonment and the aforementioned memory of generations).

An increasing number of people are coming to understand that our currency has no inherent value. Many also realize that it is not even a fixed measure of value. However, most still believe that the dollar is the best way of measuring of wealth, even if it is shrinking over time as a yardstick. In other words, we generally believe that dollars are to wealth as miles are to distance or pounds are to mass (weight).

But that belief may be an error -- a very important and subtle error that serves those who would exercise power over us and remove our wealth for their political and economic purposes.

Consider the price of gold. Today, it is around $1,500 an ounce. Where does this price come from? We're taught that price is a function of supply and demand. However, the market for gold includes more claimed ounces than there are ounces of physical gold. Therefore, if each person who owns "paper gold," which is a contractual claim on the real thing, actually took delivery of the metal (rather than settling the contract or trade in cash), there would be insufficient gold to settle all of the claims.

In other words, the claims are illusory, and represent illusory supply and illusory demand that set the illusory price of gold in illusory dollars. The same is true for many other markets.

If the size of the market for gold is mostly determined by all the bits of paper that represent claims on gold, rather than the amount of physical gold that anyone really owns, then the question is begged: what is the real value of an ounce of gold? It's certainly not $1,500. And what does "real value" mean anyway?

Currency is strange and unique. Goods become more expensive when the demand for the real value they provide increases. But when currency is in demand, people hoard it, and in so doing choose to forgo some good or service that provides real value (and which they could acquire by spending their currency). In this way, the demand for currency is a kind of inverse of the demand for real value. Moreover, when money is hoarded, the productive economy slows (in the short-term, at least), and less value is created. Currency and value are opposites!

That may seem like playing fast and loose with economic definitions, as well as a semantic sleight of hand, and perhaps it is -- but it is less so than is done every day to maintain our current "belief" in money and our financial system. Challenging our basic economic assumptions -- especially the obvious ones -- is important, because when a crisis hits, it's invariably what everyone is certain of, but is dead wrong about, that kills us.

The certainty that wealth is a number of currency units is very hard for the Western mind to shake. The idea that a man whose goods would sell for a million dollars is necessarily wealthier than one whose goods would sell for ten thousand depends entirely on pricing real, fixed things, like houses and chunks of precious metal, in something that is illusory, changing, and the target of the murky intentions of governments and bankers. It also depends on assigning more "reality" to the illusory measure than to the physical thing that hurts your toe when you kick it. How strange.

Millions of people in other parts of the world are not victims of this cultural prejudice. They have different collective memories. They know, even if unconsciously, that a man who has a million dollars in the bank and nothing else may be wiped out in a flash should hyperinflation take root, or a currency collapse occur, or a central banker change his mind about something, while a man with perhaps only a few gold coins would not only maintain buying power in any such crisis, but would see his practical wealth rise as the currency loses value.

Actually, they wouldn't put it that way. They would say that such a crisis merely reveals the truth that only real things are wealth, and that only some of those real things effectively store value over time. They might venture that apparent "wealth" whose "value" changes with the economic and political climate (like cash in the bank) is not true wealth at all.

This view of the world, largely anathema to the Western mind, provides a practical wisdom: that wealth should be stored in assets that have been proven to fulfill that function over time. But it also provides a more subtle wisdom: that the prevailing means of exchange (currency) need not be the best store of wealth, and the best store of wealth need not be the prevailing means of exchange. Further, one may not be best measured by the other. Bearing in mind that gold has uniquely performed the wealth preservation function throughout history, ponder again the true value of an ounce of gold and the money in your cash account.

People all over the world use currency that is borrowed into existence. In the West, though, we measure wealth almost exclusively in units of that currency. "Money" is created by banks only when someone borrows it. Since it is borrowed at interest, there always exists less money than is owed to the banks that create it, so debt slavery and foreclosure are built into the system. Moreover, this debt-money is devalued when the Fed print more of it for political purposes.

If we were not completely brainwashed, we'd think it absurd that anyone would measure, let alone store, their wealth in such units.

We've built a society on such absurdity. Just as money exists as a claim on a borrower's economic output, government sustains itself by claiming more of the future economic output of the people it supposedly represents.

Fiat currencies fail. If you're one of the woefully few Americans who could lay their hands on an extra $2000 in a month, it may be a good time to consider selling illusion to purchase reality -- in the knowledge that whereas free markets based on sound money can capture the real value of things, rigged markets based only on mental money cannot.

 

Follow Robin Koerner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rkoerner

 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
carolm62
01:03 PM on 06/08/2011
I recall Robert Kiyosaki telling a story in which he asked, ' What is money...?" The answer he received was: "Money is what we agree it is."

Very interesting response when considered alongside our current circumstance -- in which people all over the world are opening their eyes to the illusion and no longer agreeing on the nature of money....
05:06 PM on 06/03/2011
Contrary to what economic frauds will claim, money is simply the commonly accepted medium of exchange. It has nothing to do with debt unless you have some fiat fractional reserve system (i.e., a doubly fraudulent banking system). Yes, it is valued because people accept it, but the frauds don't (can't) explain why money is a good in itself and why money-prices are what they are. The answer is the famous regression theorem, which explains that money has value today because it was valued yesterday, and so on, all the way until you reach the past days of barter, when the good was valued for its direct use. (Interestingly, it was the lack of this explanation that caused the faux-economists to split into micro and macro; the first abstracted money from barter, while the second assumes some vague "price level" and never the two theories shall meet.

Just like all monopolies, the monopoly over money production is bad for consumers because it results in high prices and low quality. Further, the monopolized expansion of fiat money is the root cause of depressions, because the influx of fiat money (by any amount) will generate an unsustainable economy that must necessarily crash.
04:21 PM on 06/03/2011
Try this one, the big mac index: http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/index.cfm

Seems like a fair way to value a currency given that bread, beef, special sauce etal, are available pretty much everywhere.
photo
BuckJ
I read a book once.
10:58 PM on 06/02/2011
Once money moved on from being cocoa beans or some other useful item to make up a remainder of value between the trade of unlike things (ie a horse and a hog), it's already stopped being real or substantial, or anything but a simulation of an abstraction.

What you have pointed out is the unsustainability of an employment economy without mitigating controls (ie progressive income tax and EIC), as more money always has to flow up than flows down, eventually getting jammed up on one side.
photo
BuckJ
I read a book once.
10:58 PM on 06/02/2011
"People all over the world use currency that is borrowed into existence."

Money is a debt instrument. It always has been. In different parts of the world it evolved as promise of goods at a later date for goods received now...either because the provider of goods did not need reciprocal goods at just that time or because of time constraints such as farmers having their goods available at harvast.

"In the West, though, we measure wealth almost exclusively in units of that currency."

According to whom? I don't doubt many people simplify it that way. But Adam Smith certainly didn't. Henry David Thoreau didn't. Henry Ford didn't. Most self-made millionaires and billionaires wouldn't say that.

" "Money" is created by banks only when someone borrows it. Since it is borrowed at interest, there always exists less money than is owed to the banks that create it, so debt slavery and foreclosure are built into the system. Moreover, this debt-money is devalued when the Fed print more of it for political purposes. "

It's borrowed against future production. You have to assume the production to create it. It's the problem with trying to summon something from the ether. Money doesn't exist, even in specie. You're squabbling about the security something like gold gives our limbic system. It's a mere simulation of an abstract concept whether it is gold, a dollar bill, or a number on a computer screen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gerald4
licensed mechanical and electrical engineer
08:01 PM on 06/02/2011
Mr. Koerner:

Instead of creating wealth, the USA is printing and selling freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds and US Dollars that have no value because they are not redeemable for gold, so the US government is redeeming these freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds, Dollars and other Securities for title to (corporations that own) privately owned businesses, factories, casinos, hotels, farms, land, ports, refineries, forests, ports, breweries, distilleries, and other privately owned wealth and assets located in the USA that were created by previous US generations prior to de-industrialization instead of gold.

When the USA has no more privately owned wealth and assets (real estate and businesses) for foreigners in industrial countries to exchange for freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds and freshly printed paper US Dollars that we gave the foreigners to make consumer products for US citizens, those foreigners will not accept any more of our freshly printed US dollars to pay for the consumer products that we continue to import and consume.

At this time the purchasing power of the US dollar will approach zero.
05:50 PM on 06/02/2011
And here I am trying to save more money than I ever have before. So, it sounds like my "money" is better off under my bed as real gold, than fiat money sitting in a bank? I'm Getting horrible interest for my savings.
05:46 PM on 06/02/2011
Bah. You miss the whole point of money. It was never intended as an object of value, but only as a medium of exchange. It's more convenient to have an agreed upon medium of exchange than to actually go out and exchange chickens for cows, gold for cars, or what have you for what you want. The car company doesn't need gold, it needs the stuff it uses to build cars and will spend gold or dollars as quick as it gets them. As long as you realized that dollars are not intended to be a permanent store of value, you will be OK. The dollars I get from my labor I use to purchase those things I need like house, car, food, clothing. The excess dollars I invest in tangible assets. Sure, you could use gold as the exchange medium, but who needs to? So what if the dollar lost 98% of its value since 1917? Anyone who held a 1917 dollar that long deserves to suffer that loss. Dollars are meant to be temporary placeholders of value. Anyone fool enough to stockpile them and hope for a beneficial outcome deserves to lose their shorts.
08:43 PM on 06/02/2011
You are missing something very important. Gold IS money. Matter of fact it served that function for centuries before fiat currency was ever invented. Since money is a medium of exchange, you want that medium to retain its value and not be manipulated by massive fluctuations in supply. Its basic economics 101 that if supply outstrips demand, prices fall.

In the case of a fiat currency, as the money supply increases, it takes more and more money to buy things. So if a loaf of bread is a dollar, and you artificially increase the money supply this results in increased demand so long as people still value bread and wish to buy bread. As such, there are too many dollars chasing too few goods, this is where you get inflation. Now that bread costs more than a dollar. Unless people demand more bread than they normally would, prices have to rise because there are not MORE dollars available to buy that bread.

Gold can't be printed or created off a press, its supply is limited and more stable than fiat currency which can be made from ink and paper, two resources which are in much greater supply than gold or silver. Until a better form of money is discovered and proffered, gold and silver will be superior to fiat currency. Gold and silver IS money.
08:43 PM on 06/02/2011
Its like being at an auction where everyone has an average of 1k dollars in their pocket. Now imagine (demand remaining the same) you increase the money supply and now everyone has 10,000 dollars in their pocket on average. What do you think will happen to those items in the auction, they will end up costing more because the money supply has been increased, there is more money chasing fewer goods. If demand stays consistent with the people that originally had 1,000 in their pockets prices will RISE.

Another example is you having a car that gets really good gas mileage, gas prices sky rocket to 5 dollars a gallon, now your normally undesirable fuel efficient car that doesn't have all the bells and whistles, performance and looks of less fuel efficient cars becomes more in demand due to it fuel efficiency. With a limited number of those cars for sale, you can get a higher price, you can demand more money for it. Now imagine if someone magically could increase the supply of fuel efficient cars for sale, with an increased supply with the money supply and demand staying the same, you will get LESS for your car than before. Why? Because someone artificially inflated the car supply. You have to look at these very simple examples and reach beyond and understand why fiat money can be so destructive.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Romeover
Civilization is for weaklings.
03:16 PM on 06/02/2011
The value of gold is also illusory. If you have no food, and are starving to death, your gold might not buy anything to eat unless you can convince someone who has food to exchange it for your worthless gold.

However, if you have to plate some electrical contacts to resist corrosion, then gold is worth more than salami.
jhNY
Mercy.
07:12 PM on 06/02/2011
Yep, but though many predict the possibility, the value of gold noplace in history ever has been equivalent to zero. A friend calls her emerald and gold ring her 'chicken breast', since she figures no matter how dire things might someday become, she'll at least have something that will always trade for a chicken breast. I think she's right-- in fact, having seen the ring, I think she gets a platter full of them at least.

Like that part about corrosion and salami....
photo
BuckJ
I read a book once.
11:00 PM on 06/02/2011
"the value of gold noplace in history ever has been equivalent to zero."

The Western Hemisphere before Columbus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thrashertm
03:01 PM on 06/02/2011
Great article Robin. I agree with it wholeheartedly, but would make one slight correction. I believe the dollar has lost 98% of its value since 1913, when the Fed took over stewardship of the currency. The loss since 1971 has been pronounced and severe, but less than 98%.

Is your job perfect? Economical job placement assistance. www.jobwaltz.com
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Robin Koerner
05:21 PM on 06/02/2011
Depends what your yardstick is :-) I prefer to trust the gold price (ironically, given the example in my article) to the CPI or basket of other depreciating currencies... But yes, reasonable people can argue this.
jhNY
Mercy.
01:44 PM on 06/02/2011
"However, the market for gold includes several claims on each ounce of physical gold." A bit of a reach, no? I mean, if my gold's in my house in a drawer, there are no other claimants to that ounce or three in my possession. Folks fleeing paper money for paper gold are paper-thin in the comprehension department. Take delivery!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Robin Koerner
05:19 PM on 06/02/2011
I see what you mean. I worded that badly, I guess. For clarity, have changed the sentence to, "However, the market for gold includes more claimed ounces than there are ounces of physical gold."
jhNY
Mercy.
07:14 PM on 06/02/2011
I think you have improved your piece by that change.

Fanned. Hope you have occasion to write more here on money and metals.