Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on the history of money.

[GALTGULCH8]

[syrakusos]

Total baloney. His history is flawed and his theory is not capitalism, despite his spouting that word.

• Congress did not close two previous central banks. They did refuse to renew the charter of the first Bank of the United States However, it was President Andrew Jackson who killed the second BUS, by vetoing the Congressional approval of its charter renewal.
• The paper money of the colonies was not backed in gold... or silver... or anything, really... which is not all that bad. (See below).
• The USA never really went on a legal gold standard, but maintained a silver-based bi-metallic currency, though most authorities agree that a de facto international gold standard obtained after 1871. (In the USA it was called "The Crime of '73".)
• In a truly capitalist economy, banks could issue what we call "fiat" currency. Businesses could issue their own money. You could, too, backed in your own labor, "Gulch8 Time Dollars."
• It is not true - and was never true - that only Congress could create money. Private gold coins and circulating cent tokens are known from the 1830s through 1870s. Even if it were true, it would not be right, not morally right, any more than the federal monopoly on the Post Office is morally right.

Let me tell you a story... One time, when I was about 10, this kid on our street had cousins come over and the family went to the Stadium to watch the Indians play. The kid's cousin caught a foul ball. He brought it to show us... and no one believed him... Looking back on it, I think the reason is lack of "social esteem." We assumed that no one in our neighborhood could be lucky enough to catch a foul ball at the Stadium. So, too, here on OL. I am an award-winning numismatist, a world class authority on the history of money. But you link to Judge Napolitano because no one from Objectivism Online could be an important authority.

Mere Gold is not Enough: Hayek's Denationalisation of Money

Numismatics: the Standard of Proof in Economics

Numismatics Informs Economics

Murray Rothbard: Fraud or Faker?

Debt: the Seed of Civilization

Digital Cash: Coins without Realms

You can think whatever you want of me, but you should be aware that when it comes to the history of money this Judge Napolitano is full of baloney.

[caroljane]

All I know is, I always heard "Judge" like he's king, he just got elected once, Jeez,Napolitano is kind of a jerk and you aren't Mr Marotta, so I vote for you.

[Dglgmut]

At least he's talking about money on TV.

[BaalChatzaf]

Total baloney. His history is flawed and his theory is not capitalism, despite his spouting that word.

Debt: the Seed of Civilization

Managed debt (which is "future money") is absolutely essential to economic growth in market economies.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

It also argues against the claim that you cannot make your own money. The Pat Buchanan conservatives who rant against the "money masters" are have a voice on many libertarian and Objectivist forums.

The perscution of Bernard von Nothaus - and his abandoment by his comrades - speaks volumes in warning. You cannot make your own coins as money. However, can make tokens and medallions in precious metals.

You can make your own paper money without restriciton. See the ideas of E. C. Riegel, which were endorsed by Harry Browne long ago in How To Profit from the Coming Devaluation. Edwin Clarence Riegel (1879-1954) lived most of his life in New York City. He published fewer than a dozen monographs. The one most widely circulated then, Private Enterprise Money (1944), is all but forgotten now. Several hundred copies of The New Approach to Freedom (1949) were in Riegel’s personal estate, which was passed on to Spencer MacCallum. (MacCallum later wrote The Art of Community.) MacCallum rescued Riegel’s ideas by editing and republishing The New Approach to Freedom. MacCallum also discovered the manuscript for Flight From Inflation: the Monetary Alternative. Both of these books are available from The ("small is beautiful") Schumacher Society and other sources online.

Ithaca Time Dollars are famous. Traverse City "Bay Bucks" continue. I do not know the status of Detroit's "Cheers". Of course, you can monetize almost anything. After all, money is speech.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I fully agree that this presentation by Judge Napolitano is not his best (he even flubbed delivery), but I'm not going to trash it like you did. He said some good things that the public should think about.

Considering the total lack of agreement among today's economic experts, including their constant misrepresentations and errors in presenting historical facts, I don't find Napolitano's misrepresentations and errors any more or less heinous.

I do want to get to an interesting idea about money, though, and to tap into your knowledge.

But first, let me say where I am coming from. I am structuring my new career as an explainer of complex matters to the general public and a maker of systems that allow them to use this knowledge--personally use it--in a manner that benefits them (if they so choose). There are different names for this, "celebrity expert," "guru," "coach," "authority" and so forth, and I don't like any of those titles, but that's what people use.

(Apropos, I'm considering "pathfinder" for the time being. It has a nice ring, at least to my ear. I also want to include the "toolmaker" idea.)

My problem with just about everything I have ever read about the nature of money is that it is drenched in ideology. I don't mind principles, if fact, I am seeking them, but I don't like the distortions that always come from the framing, especially the selective omissions.

Here's an example. There is a traditional libertarian argument against banks using fractional reserves to put new money in the market with loans, thus jockeying, say, $10k in actual reserves to an enormous amount depending on what percentage is needed to stay in reserve. (It's funny. I just wrote that and even my eyes are starting to glaze over. Damn, fractional reserve banking theory is some boring stuff! )

They claim that it is impossible to pay all the loans back because the banks put the money in the market with interest attached and there simply is not that interest money in the market to pay it back. There is principle money, but not interest money. Thus, in order to create the interest money, the banks have to issue new loans to inject new money into the market, which entails more interest. And so it goes, spiraling on up into inflation like a Ponzi scheme and, ultimately, to a day of reckoning when the whole system collapses.

I can't help but notice that this analysis leaves out the fact that there is a constant population increase and a constant increase in goods and services. And that blows a big hole in the zero-sum premise (i.e., the $10k being the fixed amount and the rest being monkey-business.)

For a simple example, if there are 10 people each with a dollar, all doing business, their market prices are going to reflect that. But if there are suddenly 25 people, but still only 10 dollars in the market, the price of everything has to come down drastically. The only way to keep market prices the same--for everything--is for someone, somehow, to issue more money and get it into the market.

This goes for goods and services, too. If there is only corn being sold and there is only 10 dollars in the market, the price of corn will reflect that. But the moment there is corn, milk, wheat, beef, eggs, greens, fruits, etc., and there is still only 10 dollars in the market, the price of corn has to drop. (And I didn't even touch on the quantity of these goods being offered.) Once again, when a bunch of new products enter the market, the only way to keep the price of corn the same is for there to be more money.

Someone has to issue it and get it to the folks.

(btw - That goes the other way, too. If the population decreases or there is a drop in the goods and services being offered, prices will go up if the money in the market stays the same. So, in this case, if people want prices to be stable, someone has to take money out of circulation.)

I believe the fractional reserve spiral argument suffers this lapse--which I call a selective omission--because of the political ideology behind the analysis.

Much the same way Marx left out the selfish nature of man in his social-economic theory, or that anarcho-capitalists leave out the urge to control others (through bullying or busybodying) that is embedded in human nature. Marx used dialectics where human nature should be and ancaps use negative rights. Both dialectics and negative rights are important, but they are not more fundamental than human nature.

To put it simply, the omitted stuff won't go away and, when the theories are put to the reality test, human nature undermines the results of the ideologies, often with tragic consequences. But it is not convenient to the ideological argument, so the proponents leave it out. And the situation--including human nature--is complex enough to make all kinds of claims, counter-claims, rationalizations and whatnot.

And the beat goes on...

Now to my problem.

I don't want ideology in my process of initial identification. I just want to be able to explain the facts in as simple a manner as possible for people to understand the reality they can observe in their day-to-day living.

Here's a good example I read from Harry Browne years ago. For you to receive a dollar, someone else is going to give up that dollar.

This makes sense to people and it is absolutely true. You can illustrate it with very simple metaphors. You can make great visuals out of the action. You can make jokes people can understand immediately. Or stories. You can make this premise sticky in their minds with very little effort.

Using this base, you can then show the pros and cons of issuing new currency, which interrupts an implied fairness component of Browne's principle. If I have to provide XXX from my life to get a dollar, but all you have to do is print it, that's not fair. So if you print your dollar instead of getting it from someone else, there better be a damn good reason. After all, we both can buy the same goods and services from others for the same dollar. I just have to give up part of my life for mine and you don't.

(I'm excluding dishonesty for this point. I don't want to get sidetracked. Theft, embezzlement, etc., can be dealt with in another discussion--incidentally, one based on the same principle as here.)

From what I have seen, traditional economists "explain" this unfairness with a lot of highfalutin verbiage, lists of mind-numbing minutia and enough twisted math to put an Einstein into a coma. In other words, they give a smokescreen, not an explanation as to why some people can simply issue money while others need to do services or sell things for it.

So I want to go back to the roots as if explaining this to a 14 year old. Where does money come from? I mean in human nature.

In theory, money is just a way of distributing your own goods and services to others, and obtaining goods and services from them. But in practice, there is the unproductive issuer, which is a big deal for me these days. And a few other things. For example, I used to adhere to Rothbard's warehouse idea for the reason banks issue money (the currency being a receipt for goods you store in the warehouse), but I'm starting to look at the cracks in that idea--starting with human nature. (Just like with Rand, I believe there is some truth in his formulation, and it is insightful, but the scope is wrong. It is not all-inclusive.)

There is the power component. You can literally control people with money. There is trust in it. If people lose trust in money, they won't take it for their own goods and services. Ditto if they lose trust in you.

(I know, I know, there are many exceptions. Not everyone can be controlled by money, but the majority can be. Some people will take money they don't trust, and they will do business with someone they don't trust, but not the majority. And I believe the majority needs to accept a currency for that money to be valid for a society. By valid, I mean for it to work as a medium of exchange.) In other words, these things--power and trust--come from human nature.

More recently, there is a legal tender characteristic that has grown on money, where you have to take the legal tender as settlement of a debt in court if it is offered in lieu of, say, a pig (if that's what you are suing for).

Here is another principle to add to Browne's, maybe as a corollary. You can only get money from other people (unless you are an issuer, who gets it by manufacturing it in some form). In other words, for the majority of people, if you want money, you have to find a way to communicate with another person, convince that person, and then get it from him or her.

That, to me, implies something a hell of a lot left unanswered if you only treat the math and distribution part of money. Don't get me wrong. Math and distribution are fundamental, but so is human nature--and human relationships.

I see two foundational level sources of money:

1. Stuff (including services) used in trade, which implies a seller and a buyer, and
2. The authority who gets or creates something--whether sea-shells, gold, printed paper or bits and bytes--calls it money and puts it in circulation.

After that, it's all human relationships.

I don't know if I am being clear on what I am asking, so maybe an out-of-the box idea that has been growing in my mind will make more sense. Or maybe not.

From a 50,000 foot view with my limited reading in economics, it seems to me that money arose in civilization around the same time storytelling did. People accept, reject, use in different ways, and alter the money in their group according to the core stories that are prevalent and accepted among them. And this has been since the beginning. Religion. Philosophy. Traditions. Even gossip. These stories provide credibility for the issuer of money and convey the moral rules for how you, as a member of the group or society, can use it.

Do you want compliance? Do you want to get people to do something? Well... you can force them. There's a better way, though. It is far easier to get people to submit, to trust, to give up their stuff, to stay within a group once they become adults, to scapegoat, and, hell, even to become inspired enough to produce works of genius, if you can convince them to believe a good story than with any other method I know of.

So I wonder if money is an extension of, or somehow based on storytelling. What I mean is that the prevailing story within a culture gives money--and the issuer--enough intrinsic value for that currency to be used as a medium of exchange. And I don't want to exclude arguments like the warehouse receipt idea, or the measure of something like gold as a scarce commodity in its own right to back money. This is not an either-or speculation, but an add-this-in-also thing.

Maybe there is no single source for money in human nature, but several sources instead.

I don't know yet. The only thing I am certain of right now is my feeling that this issue is important. And that lack of clarity on this is a primary reason for all the yelling about economics in our culture.

This goes back to my idea of cognitive before normative as the best way to use your volition. You have to identify something correctly before you can judge it correctly. I constantly see the contrary with economists. They start with their judgments, then start looking for facts, figures and theories to back up their opinions. And when they encounter others who started with conflicting judgments as their premises, they all yell at each other.

(Then they tell some great stories, the kind of stories that get the people on one side all lathered up and really really, pissed at the other--but both sides do it--then they go to war and start killing each other. But that's another discussion.)

So I ask you. Do you have any thoughts on this? Thoughts you could give that would make sense to a 14 year old and not leave out anything fundamental? That's what I'm looking for.

Something like the "ritual gift exchange" idea you mentioned in your blog post, which, I think might be a piece of the puzzle. But going from there to the current debt system doesn't make cause-and-effect sense to me. So I am not inclined to consider it as the fundamental source of money I could explain to a 14 year old. I do see ritual gift giving all around me, though. And I do see a 14 year old understanding it. Merry Xmas anyone? But I don't know see how to connect that urge to a system of trade--for the 14 year old. (Even though Santa will not give you anything if you're not good. Obedience for stuff is the only trade value for that, which is lousy metaphysics.)

If we can get to simple and easily-understood core causes and effects for a 14 year old, I believe we can build the rest--and a good "rest" at that, one that can have actual influence in the culture--on such a solid base.

btw - I am asking you because you have an encyclopedia on money theory and history in your head. But obviously, I am interested in the thoughts of anyone who wants to chime in.

Michael

[GALTGULCH8]

Mike M.,

I certainly didn't mean to insult you. I was unaware of your credentials as a numismatist.

Whatever mistakes were in the judge's video I still think he has done a great deal to enlighten millions of Americans between his books and the show Freedom Watch which was cancelled for no discernible good reason.

He is a staunch advocate of the Constitution and is certainly knowledgeable about legal history.

Given the massive currency creation under Greenspan and Bernanke there will certainly be a price to be paid when all that paper circulates. It is hard to predict a date but there is some agreement that when it does happen it will be sudden and catastrophic.

John Williams of StadowStats suggests 2014 although he had predicted 2019 in the 1990s.

I am sure that Elizabeth Warren and O are lying when they hold themselves out as protectors of the Middle Class given that the Middle Class will be impoverished by the loss of purchasing power of all the dollars they have earned and saved because of Bernanke.

Tell me where I am wrong.

[syrakusos]

Define "middle class."

[syrakusos]

Gulch8, allow me to respond to the other points while you work out a definition for "middle class."

I understand that my posts here are not the focus of your attention. We all have our interests. MSK thought that I knew all of his allusions to Jewish culture over the past five years, but I knew of not a single one. I do not come here to read his posts, necessarily. I only read what he writes in topics of interest to me. So, I get your point. At the same time, allow me to suggest that Roger Bissel, Stephen Boydstun, and Robert Campbell are in the constellation of Objectivist philosophers with published works in peer journals. We all talk about Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley and they are, indeed, visible and hard-working guys, but they are not alone. Here on MSK's OL, we all treat each other as equals, Selene, Ba'al, Daunce, and the other Little Rascals in Our Gang, but, really, some are more equal than others.

I looked up Andrew J. Napolitano and read his Wikipedia biography. I am impressed. He, too, is a hard working guy with a string of achievements. I can understand why you think well of him. But, Gulch, are you not a medical doctor? I don't know which of them you are, but both of the easy ones to find are psychiatrists. (Maybe I should pay more attention to your opinions, but, I cannot help but wonder at your own displays of obsession with Ron Paul.) Anyway, I fail to see that Napolitano is any more qualified than you are to have an opinion on the Constitution. I mean if you want to cite one of his technical rulings from New Jersey, then that might be interesting, but from what I can tell, as much as I might agree with him, he does not seem to have any special insight. He is just another strict constructionist conservative who gets his historical facts wrong.

I can see why he filled in for Glenn Beck; and like Beck, his followers think that he "influences millions." However, he no more "influences millions" than does Michael Moore. People pretty much seek validation. Few actually seek to have their beliefs challenged and their opinions changed. That experience was a constant for me when I returned to college and university, and I had a couple of leftwing professors who really were at my level, and who really did give me a lot to think about. But when I offer any of that here or on Rebirth of Reason, it gets labeled as progressivism and dismissed. Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance explains much.

As for inflation as a specific topic, we have seen currencies collapse. Everyone talks about Germany 1923, but that was a special case: the Allies took Germany's gold to pay for World War I. In our own time, we have seen cases such as Russia's ruble, Argentina (australs and pesos) and the Thai baht. I am not sure how any of them would apply to the USA. Maybe the government would issue another $10 Trillion to buy back all those bonds from China... Hard to say... In any case, that's what gold is for and as long at they sell Eagles and Buffalos from the Treasury's own Mint, it's hard to see what difference it makes.

Finally, the "middle class" (however defined) does very little saving of money in the classical sense. As long as the stock market is the primary pool of liquid capital, the numbers will get bigger over time. I mentioned before seeing a Dominos Pizza sign that lacked a decimal point: "Medium One Topping 899." Sure... when Walmart pays $1000 per hour. I look at Japan, Turkey, and Italy. They all added zeroes to their moneys when they lost wars. Not much else changed.

Mike M.,

I certainly didn't mean to insult you. I was unaware of your credentials as a numismatist.

Whatever mistakes were in the judge's video I still think he has done a great deal to enlighten millions of Americans between his books and the show Freedom Watch which was cancelled for no discernible good reason.

He is a staunch advocate of the Constitution and is certainly knowledgeable about legal history.

Given the massive currency creation under Greenspan and Bernanke there will certainly be a price to be paid when all that paper circulates. It is hard to predict a date but there is some agreement that when it does happen it will be sudden and catastrophic.

John Williams of StadowStats suggests 2014 although he had predicted 2019 in the 1990s.

I am sure that Elizabeth Warren and O are lying when they hold themselves out as protectors of the Middle Class given that the Middle Class will be impoverished by the loss of purchasing power of all the dollars they have earned and saved because of Bernanke.

Tell me where I am wrong.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(NOTE: The following post is divided into two posts due to some weird automatic formatting the upgraded software now does when using multiple quotes.)

MSK thought that I knew all of his allusions to Jewish culture over the past five years, but I knew of not a single one.

I thought I was clear in my response, but apparently I was not. I was objecting to Michael's flat-out claim that I knew nothing about Jewish culture (as he gave some misleading conclusions about the oral traditions in storytelling in ancient times). Well, it so happens I did.

I figured "we Objectivists" (not my phrase) should know our facts before making such claims about another person, especially when these facts have been right under our very noses for years. But here in O-Land, many people like to judge what they do not know and do not care to find out.

When I catch myself doing this, I consider it to be a character defect, not a defect of knowledge. And I try to correct it.

I don't know if Michael will or wants to.

Anyway, moving on...

I am an award-winning numismatist, a world class authority on the history of money...

OK.

So I was impressed with the self-promotion.

I thought I would ask a topical question of this "world class authority." A serious question with importance to a project I am working on right now. A discussion without any posturing or BS. So I asked.

Michael,

...

I do want to get to an interesting idea about money, though, and to tap into your knowledge.

... [Long explanation of why I am asking.] ...

So I ask you. Do you have any thoughts on this? Thoughts you could give that would make sense to a 14 year old and not leave out anything fundamental? That's what I'm looking for.

...

btw - I am asking you because you have an encyclopedia on money theory and history in your head.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can't get any more respectful and clear than that.

The response?

It wasn't to me. But there was some kind of response.

Here on MSK's OL, we all treat each other as equals, Selene, Ba'al, Daunce, and the other Little Rascals in Our Gang, but, really, some are more equal than others...

. . .

... I fail to see that Napolitano is any more qualified than you are to have an opinion on the Constitution. ... He is just another strict constructionist conservative who gets his historical facts wrong.

I can see why he filled in for Glenn Beck; and like Beck, his followers think that he "influences millions."

I have to conclude that this is one "world class authority" who isn't much interested in discussing the topic of his expertise here on OL unless he can use to to bash OL, bash Napolitano, and bash Glenn Beck.

I mean, why use information to build stuff when you can use it for an earth-shattering world-saving cause where you get to point your finger at enemies and trounce them in imaginary battles? Right?

I believe there is something in Rand's brash way of setting up her opponents in her writing as if they were in front of her, then putting them down with crude insults, that attracts this kind of spirit. It's all over the place in our subculture. It's raw naked hunger to bash and it trumps interest in discussing serious ideas. I'm talking about the prime moving drive in online relationships, what makes a person wish to share his or her knowledge, not the intensity of the rhetoric. It's an irrational need to feel superior to other human beings, especially when there is no feedback of "ooh" and "ahh.".

This holds even for "world class authorities" who bristle when the opinions of celebrities they dislike are taken seriously by people in their peer group.

Ya' can't bash a real enemy to his face very much online because he'll call you a jerk and go away, so what to do if you crave imitating Ayn Rand's derisive attitudes? The only thing left is to bash your peers and their interests. These folks, at least, stick around.

As they say in Brazil, if I can't have the "you" I really want, the "you" in front of me will do.

Whatever...

The takeaway of all this musing is that it looks like I will have to look elsewhere for the stuff I am interested in discussing. I need a certain kind of perspective and information on the origins of money and I thought Michael was qualified to provide some input, being a "world class authority" and all. But "won't do it" equals "can't do it" in terms of the outcome, and neither works for getting the job done. So off I go looking in other directions...

Michael

[caroljane]

"Baal,Selene, Daunce, and other Little Rascals in Our Gang"

I am honoured to secure a place in such a world-class chorus. I guess we all know who Spanky is, but I hasten to assure everyone that I did NOT grow up to get away with murder. Not literally, anyway, and I don't think Baal did either.

[GALTGULCH8]

Michael,

I love this site.

Where else can one post a video or an essay or an article and provoke such responses.

[caroljane]

Michael,

I love this site.

Where else can one post a video or an essay or an article and provoke such responses.

Gulch, I know how you feel. As a responder on this thread I am pleased to have provided, along with my Gang, possibly some respite in a trying day.

Alfalfa

[caroljane]

Baal,

We have always got along well and I trust there will be no hard feelings on this. I know Sammy Davis was Jewish and there is no reason to think Alfalfa wasn't, but Spanky and Alfalfa are the only two members of our gang I ever heard of outside of Robert Blake and I don't want to be him and I do not have time to look it up, even though I loved Robert Blakes acting, if you follow my meaning. So you will just have to be somebody else.

Carol

(Alfalfa)

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal,

We have always got along well and I trust there will be no hard feelings on this. I know Sammy Davis was Jewish and there is no reason to think Alfalfa wasn't, but Spanky and Alfalfa are the only two members of our gang I ever heard of outside of Robert Blake and I don't want to be him and I do not have time to look it up, even though I loved Robert Blakes acting, if you follow my meaning. So you will just have to be somebody else.

Carol

(Alfalfa)

Just call me :Buh'wheat and be my friend.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Baal,

We have always got along well and I trust there will be no hard feelings on this. I know Sammy Davis was Jewish and there is no reason to think Alfalfa wasn't, but Spanky and Alfalfa are the only two members of our gang I ever heard of outside of Robert Blake and I don't want to be him and I do not have time to look it up, even though I loved Robert Blakes acting, if you follow my meaning. So you will just have to be somebody else.

Carol

(Alfalfa)

Just call me :Buh'wheat and be my friend.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sho'nuff will. Buckwheat latkes are my favourites.

[PDS]

This thread does constitute the first time I have witnessed somebody self-identify as a "world class" anything. Perhaps I need to get out more.

[caroljane]

This thread does constitute the first time I have witnessed somebody self-identify as a "world class" anything. Perhaps I need to get out more.

Do I sense an underlying resentment that Somebody has been left out again and not identified as world-class without having to do it Himself?

Indeed PDS, you need to get out more. You might have been consigned to our world-class Gang if you would just be more assiduous and thrust yourself into serious discussions with inane comments, like me. I mean Me.

[PDS]

This thread does constitute the first time I have witnessed somebody self-identify as a "world class" anything. Perhaps I need to get out more.

Do I sense an underlying resentment that Somebody has been left out again and not identified as world-class without having to do it Himself?

Indeed PDS, you need to get out more. You might have been consigned to our world-class Gang if you would just be more assiduous and thrust yourself into serious discussions with inane comments, like me. I mean Me.

I have no underlying resentments. I have, instead, out in the open rage.

It would appear that I am the Toohey to MEM's Roark: he apparently doesn't even think of me.

[caroljane]

Did somebody say something?

[syrakusos]

MSK wrote on December 10 in Post #7: Michael,

So I ask you. Do you have any thoughts on this? Thoughts you could give that would make sense to a 14 year old and not leave out anything fundamental? That's what I'm looking for.

Something like the "ritual gift exchange" idea you mentioned in your blog post, which, I think might be a piece of the puzzle. But going from there to the current debt system doesn't make cause-and-effect sense to me. So I am not inclined to consider it as the fundamental source of money I could explain to a 14 year old. I do see ritual gift giving all around me, though. And I do see a 14 year old understanding it. Merry Xmas anyone? But I don't know see how to connect that urge to a system of trade--for the 14 year old. (Even though Santa will not give you anything if you're not good. Obedience for stuff is the only trade value for that, which is lousy metaphysics.)

If we can get to simple and easily-understood core causes and effects for a 14 year old, I believe we can build the rest--and a good "rest" at that, one that can have actual influence in the culture--on such a solid base.

btw - I am asking you because you have an encyclopedia on money theory and history in your head. But obviously, I am interested in the thoughts of anyone who wants to chime in.

Michael

1. No, I have no thoughts on what you wrote, not the first time I read, nor second, nor the third.

2 The reason why is that I did not follow the rambling narrative ahead of the multifaceted question which

2a. included your admission that you do not feel comfortable with the theory that debt is the source of money, so

2b. we are at an impasse on a major premise. However,

3. you offer your own views of what is important about money, but

3a. confess to being unable to explain them to a 14-year old. You sugggest that

4 because I have a string of publications, judged exhibits, and public presentations that I can explain your ideas to a child better than you can. Consequently,

5. while I am flattered (I think) at the attention, I cannot live up to your expectations.

You interpreted my failing to respond as arrogrance, when, in truth, it was engendered by humility -- though I confess that pointing that out is arrogant, as the humble response would be to accept the unearned insult, which would be contrary to our common ethos. In person, I could just communicate all that with some grumbling and mumbling and hand-waving and not have to spell it out.

I trust that this will not damage our relationship. Even frenemies have bromances.

LYLAB.

Michael M.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2a. included your admission that you do not feel comfortable with the theory that debt is the source of money, so

Michael,

I have a feeling you have no idea what I am getting at and do not care to know.

Frankly, I prefer you to ignore my request for thoughts and bash the things you like to bash, or simply say, "I'm not interested," than to attribute me with bogus positions like the one above (that's not the only one) and go off on a mea culpa detour that sounds like a stretch.

Don't worry.

I won't be asking you anything about money theory or money history again.

I do have a great deal of affection for you, though, and I do think you have a wonderful mind. I say that to your face and have said it behind your back several times. I will continue, too. It's funny, but now that I think of it, as far as I can remember, I have never criticized you behind your back. It's always been to your face.

Michael

[syrakusos]

OK ...