On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem with all "money cures" (gold standard, credit-money, Utopian schemes) is that the critiques of each of them are basically correct. There is no "cure" for money because money is a symptom, not a disease.
Money is symbolic, ritualistic, it has no inherent meaning. What it means depends entirely on the quality of human relationships. If there is trust, money means trusting. If there is domination and oppression, money means dominating and oppressing. This is regardless of the technical feature of the system -- gold standard, credit-money, modern monetary theory or moon-beam dollars.
While I generally agree with the idea that money is not a disease, but a symptom or a signal of something more inherent, I think the technical features do mean something, because they ENCODE those inherent and deeper signals. Money based on gold TIES it to the Earth and something cosmic, in ways that are not necessarily easily understood but present nonetheless. In any case, I think it is premature to decide on a monetary system until, like you suggest, we have an overarching purpose/agreement (or perhaps just the "right" one) that binds us together. mark j Santa Fe, NM