The phrase really bothers me. A large part of it is the implication inherent in the statement that money is not simply something that has worth, but that it is also worthy. In my opinion, taking something that has intrinsic value, and comparing it favorably to another thing that has no intrinsic value, cheapens that thing.
Of course, I know there are some people who would squawk at the idea that money has no intrinsic value. This world is full of people who bow to and worship at the altar of money, forgetting that money is not a thing in itself, but a shared hallucination. Money only has value if both parties involved agree it does by mutual consent. If I were to offer a dog a choice between a $10 steak and a $20 bill, which would he prefer? The $20 bill has no value to him, while the steak is a tasty meal. I couldn't explain to the dog that with the $20 bill, he could purchase 2 steaks. The $20 bill only has value because the butcher and I have both accepted the fiction that it does.
Some may argue that a dog and a person are not the same, and I shouldn't expect a dog to understand what a human does. So here's another example, which I'm paraphrasing from a book. If you were stuck on a desert island, would you rather have a sack full of cash, or a sack full of potatoes? A silly question, you might be saying, as the answer is so obvious. And yet you have to be pulled out of civilization to make the answer so obvious. The money is useless to you (no intrinsic value) on a desert island, while the potatoes can be eaten (intrinsic value), and with some luck, can be planted and cultivated into even more potatoes. While the merits of a potato-only diet are arguable, they certainly have more nutritional value than money, whether it's paper or coinage.
Traditionally, gold has had value to us because it's shiny and rare. That's pretty much been it for most of human history. Recently, some practical uses have been found for gold; it's conductivity makes it useful in electronics, for instance. But it would be absurd to claim that the ancient Babylonians were coining gold because they knew that in 6,000 years, we'd find a way to use the stuff.
Having said all this, I don't really have anything against money. I accept that it's a useful way to attain goods and services, and certainly more practical in an urban setting than keeping a bunch of livestock I can barter. Though if the Revolution comes tomorrow, I may find myself wishing I had a couple pigs to slaughter just in case. But it's not really something I can believe in, and certainly nothing I can ascribe higher values to and invoke its name to show my approval of something.
I was talking to a friend once, the same friend as I mentioned in the beginning, in fact. I told him that I don't believe in ghosts. He asked me why, and I said that I've never seen one. He countered with "do you believe in 1 million dollars?" His point, I'm sure, is that I've never seen 1 million dollars, either. And of course was the unspoken assumption that I absolutely must believe in 1 million dollars, or the fraud of money would be exposed for what it is. I gave it some serious thought, and I have to say, I don't believe in one million dollars. You may as well ask if I believe in a character in a novel. It's just an idea.
Hell, in this modern age of electronic banking, when a paycheck can pass from a corporation's account to the bank account of the employee via direct deposit, and from there to the grocery store's bank account via a debit card, without ever having become anything other than an electronic trail the entire time, can money really be said to exist? As I understand it, we don't even back our money on the gold standard, the silver standard, or any other hard currency. Our money is backed by credit. Money doesn't even have a physical existence anymore, except for those increasingly rare times we convert it from binary code into cash. No, I don't believe in 1 million dollars. But I do believe in steaks and potatoes.
-Long Days and Pleasant Nights
No comments:
Post a Comment