To many minds, the solution to our core economic problems is to return to sound money via either the gold standard, in which gold backs all currency, or by substituting bitcoin for gold, i.e. bitcoin becomes the coin of the realm.
I have often held that if we don't change the way money is created and distributed, we've changed nothing.
But money is complicated, and this introduces the koan of this post's title: The Problem With Money Isn't Money. The human mind prefers simplicity over complexity, and so we tend to seek simple solutions to complex problems. Sometimes simple solutions do work with almost magical efficacy, but other times they generate new problems that we didn't foresee, problems that complicate our simple solution.
As David Graeber explained in his book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, the problem with money isn't what's declared the coin of the realm, it's all the forms of money that aren't coins and currency, i.e. credit a.k.a. debt, which as Graeber documents, has been "money" since commerce began.
If we cut to the chase, the problem with money boils down to:
1. There isn't enough coin of the realm to grease all the activity everyone wants to pursue.
2. Most of the coin of the realm is owned by the wealthy, out of reach of commoners trying to improve their standard of living.
3. Regardless of what's declared the coin of the realm, human Wetware1.0 will generate disastrously destructive speculative bubbles and panics.
If you declare clam shells as money, clam shells will be "invested" (i.e. gambled) in speculations that amass fortunes for a few and ruin for the rest. The extraordinary speculative manias and resulting ruin of the South Seas and Tulip Bubbles occurred in sound money economies. sound money didn't inhibit the rise of bubbles and the resulting crashes, nor did it limit the depressions and panics that characterized the 19th century.
The problem in 1800 America was straightforward: there wasn't enough gold and silver in circulation to fuel the immense drive to increase production and commerce. If sound money is limited, and much of what is in existence is in the hands of the wealthy, then the economy of the bottom 95% can't expand.
Here is the economic reality that sound money can't solve: the wealthy inherit sound money, or they own monopolies or enterprises that generate sound money, but the commoners have only their labor to sell, and the value of that labor is set by market forces such that few can earn enough to pile up savings sufficient to start an enterprise or buy an asset in cash.
The rich love sound money, the poor love money in circulation and credit because these are the only means they have to increase production and commerce. This is the lesson of history: paper money was issued in China because there wasn't enough gold and silver in circulation to grease everyday commerce and production.
In other realms, copper coins were issued for everyday transactions, as there wasn't enough gold and silver in circulation for average people to get their hands on any of it.
A scarcity of gold and silver wasn't just a problem for commoners seeking to increase production and commerce; it was a problem for governments, too as commoners couldn't pay their taxes in gold or silver because they didn't have any. Taxes had to be paid in kind, i.e. with grain or with some other form of "money" that wasn't gold or silver.
In the Middle Ages, the scarcity of gold and silver led to the creation of a vast system of commercial credit in which paper was "money." In today's terminology, merchants issued purchase orders and arranged for trade via promissory notes held by trusted intermediaries that could be traded as "money" before settlement.
So if we agreed to trade a cartload of lumber for woolen clothing, the actual exchange of these goods would occur at one of the great trading fairs. In the meantime, I could trade (sell) the promissory note for the lumber to another merchant, and use the proceeds to pursue other commerce. At the trade fair, the goods would be exchanged and the "money" created by the notes disappeared.
In other words, the vast majority of commerce was enabled by credit, not sound money. If commerce had been restricted solely to sound money, then there would have been very little commerce and therefore few opportunities for commoners to get ahead.
Credit is "money," too. This is the reality that proponents of sound money gloss over. Most of the "money" in any system is credit or fiat: the Chinese dynasties issued "fiat currency" paper money out of necessity, just as ancient regimes issued low-value copper coinage to serve the same purpose, and merchants throughout history have used commercial credit as "money."
One would imagine that the Spanish Empire, funded by its treasure fleet of silver from the New World, had no need for credit. But one would be wrong. The flood of silver expanded the supply of "money," and the result was predictable: the value of silver "money" fell accordingly.
The Empire pursued so many wars simultaneously that it borrowed heavily from Dutch bankers. Its enormous income of sound money did not stop it from becoming over-indebted.
In the early 1800s, Americans were desperate for credit to expand production and commerce, and so banks sprouted and failed with alarming regularity. Recall how bank credit works. The bank accepts cash deposits, and loans out a percentage of the cash at interest as the necessary means of earning revenues to support the bank's costs of doing business: rent, employees, etc., and generating a return for the owners.
In the normal course of everyday commerce, keeping 25% of the cash for customers withdrawing their deposited cash is more than enough. But then a financial panic arises, and every customer rushes to the bank to withdraw their savings in full. The bank doesn't have enough cash, and so it calls in all its loans. The borrowers don't have the cash on hand to pay back the loan, so they are bankrupted. The bank doesn't have enough cash to cover all withdrawal demands, and so the bank fails, and the depositors who weren't first in line lose their money.
You see The Problem With Money Isn't Money per se, it's credit, humanity's hunger for speculation and improving one's standard of living and the necessity of issuing credit and other forms of "money" to grease commerce and increase production.
How to satisfy the needs for credit and "money" in circulation and limiting the downsides of speculative bubbles and panics are the problems central banks were created to resolve. Sound money--the coin of the realm throughout history--generates its own set of problems, and does not eliminate speculative bubbles and crashes or the destruction wrought by panics.
The Problem With Money is that it's complicated. It's tied not just to scarcity value and supply and demand but to human psychology and everything from the need to collect taxes to the Pareto Distribution, which dictates that 80% of all the wealth--property and all the sound money--will end up in the hands of the top 20%, leaving the bottom 80% with few opportunities to improve their lot.
The rich own the sound money and the poor who want to get ahead need credit to fund their attempt to improve their lot.
When speculative bubbles pop, the resulting ruin cannot be avoided. The problems of Money cannot be reduced down to a simple solution.
New podcast: Charles Hugh Smith - LeafBox -- wide-ranging discussion of Anti-Progress, technology, mythology, and experimenting to right-size your own electrical utility...
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases originated via links to Amazon products in my Substack posts.
Dutch, you make a point that has largely been lost: much of the financialization trickery we now reckon is "the way it is" was illegal a generation or two ago. Things really started unraveling IMO when "corporate raiders" displaced industrial capital as the "driver" of the economy. The Industrialists were interested in building things and monuments such as public buildings in their home cities. Financiers (Boesky et al.) were only interested in borrowing money from Wall Street (courtesy of the Fed) at low rates, leveraging a private buyout of a company, stripmining it of assets, loading it up with debt and then taking it public again to offload the carcass on unsuspecting "investors." Highly profitable, so that meant it was "capitalism at its finest."
Or not.
BJ, IMO history supports the idea that the "best system" isn't ideological in nature, it's a system with numerous competing interests: in the modern era, this included industrialists, farmers, labor unions, banks, and financiers / Wall Street speculators, who justify their predation as "allocating capital."
When any one interest-group (or individual) gains too much political power, then the system loses the dynamic homeostasis / balance generated by no one groups wresting control.
IMO the financial interests became dominant in the 1980s and the nation suffered the consequences: "global mobile capital" is now called "private equity" but the dynamic is the same: they have no national or local interests, only quick profits, so offshoring production regardless of national interests became the de facto financier policy.
What to do with the Fed? As I tried to explain, financial panics, bubbles and depressions are part and parcel of any financial system, and so central banks were seen as the "solution." But central banks are of course banks and so they see finance as the core of the economy: they have a hammer so everything is a nail. Could Treasury departments replace central banks as "lenders of last resort" in panics? I think the answer is yes/ Then we could get rid of the artifice that central banks are "independent."
warm regards, charles
Thank you for all the excellent comments. I'm going to make some general observations / claims.
What I was trying to address is the unexamined belief that is dominant in economics, that money and finance can fix all our problems. This is the result of living in a zeitgeist dominated by finance. Nobody asks "what kind of monetary system would serve the common citizen rather than the state, the banks and the wealthy?"
The Overton Window on money is incredibly narrow. We've got gold, bitcoin, the Fed, banks, fiat, etc. Isn't there any other possibilities? I've made a case for 8 years that "money" could be "created" solely by human labor rather than by banks or "mining" bitcoin. OK it's "crazy," but money is a social contract, nothing more. There is nothing intrinsic about money.
We all know the State will never let go of its monopoly on "money," and so even a gold standard claim would be manipulated. A wise State (does any such thing exist?) would allow non-state "money" to compete with its own "money." This is why precious metal coinage :works," its value is independent of the State.
As I tried to explain recently, IMO any useful commodity can act as "money" or "back money."
My friend John D. mentioned in an email that what we're discussing here is Trust with a capital T. In societies with low trust, you have to carry a scale to weigh that "silver" coin--nothing can be trusted. The trade fairs "worked" because there were trusted intermediaries. If social trust is eroding, "money" erodes along with it.
My reading of history is that there is no one "solution" to "money," and trying to combine "store of value" with "medium of exchange" generates problems that can't be solved with one form of "money." This is why it's probably wiser and more practical to have a transparent market for all kinds of money and let people choose what form works best for them in a particular situation. The Chinese issued paper money as a medium of exchange, not a store of value. That's an idea that runs through history. Maybe we could learn from it.
warm regards, charles