standards they embody have evolved over time. Like a good socialist, you even spoke admiringly of the great strides made by some international bureaucracy.”
“That’s right—the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.”
“But the useful part, if I understood you right, was old Professor Kula’s point that both concepts and the standards used to measure them are determined by the uses to which people put them. You made two points. The first was that the concept of universal economic value is just like a physical unit of measurement: the extent of its applicability, and what its standard should be, is properly determined by what it is used for. But the second was that universal economic value is also different from a physical unit of measurement. It is a property of the social rather than the physical world—it’s the central component of a technology for organising society, as you put it—so that its standard needs to be political as well.”
“Exactly. The right criteria for choosing its standard are not consistency and accuracy—as they are for a physical unit of measurement—but fairness, or political justice, or whatever you want to call the characteristic quality of a well-governed society.”
“Right. That was the philosophical part. Then you moved on to history.”
“Well: I did argue that there is evidence to support my claims about the nature of money. I claimed that it is because money’s central idea is that concept of universal economic value, and because the appropriate standard of value has to be a political one, that money as we know it today was first invented by the collision of the Mesopotamian inventions of literacy, numeracy, and accounting, with the notion of the equal social value of every member of the tribe that the primitive Dark Age Greeks had.”
“Ah yes. Well, you could be right about that—but it doesn’t seem to be that important if you aren’t. After all, money is still with us, so we can test your account of what it really is right here and now. How it was invented doesn’t really matter—and since we’ll never know, why worry?”
“That’s one way of looking at it—ever the philistine. But you’re right that the real test of my biography is how well it explains money today—and our problems with it, and how to start solving them. So carry on.”
“Well then, the history part. This is where the murder mystery began. You started out by praising the clarity of ancient Chinese monetary thought. You explained that their philosophers and emperors understood perfectly that money is a tool of government, and that the extent to which economic value is used to co-ordinate social activity, and the question of what the standard should be, are therefore to be determined solely by reference to how they contribute to the successful government of the country.”
“That’s right: to ‘peace and order in the sub-celestial realm’ as they more poetically put it.”
“Revolution, more like, if you ask me. But we’ll come to that in a moment. Anyway, then you told the story of Europe’s remonetisation in the Middle Ages. The real story here, you said, was a long-running battle between sovereigns and their subjects over the management of the standard. The Europeans, you seemed to be saying, were less concerned about the applicability of the concept of universal economic value—but they were very much concerned with what its standard was, because both sovereigns and subjects understoodonly too well that making the pound worth more or less in terms of real goods and services meant the redistribution of wealth and incomes.”
“Exactly. And especially, redistribution to the sovereign from his subjects.”
“Right. Seigniorage. The story you told was that as the monetary economy grew, so there were more and more subjects interested in the question of the standard—since they didn’t want to pay excessive seigniorage to their sovereign. They complained about it
“That’s right—the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.”
“But the useful part, if I understood you right, was old Professor Kula’s point that both concepts and the standards used to measure them are determined by the uses to which people put them. You made two points. The first was that the concept of universal economic value is just like a physical unit of measurement: the extent of its applicability, and what its standard should be, is properly determined by what it is used for. But the second was that universal economic value is also different from a physical unit of measurement. It is a property of the social rather than the physical world—it’s the central component of a technology for organising society, as you put it—so that its standard needs to be political as well.”
“Exactly. The right criteria for choosing its standard are not consistency and accuracy—as they are for a physical unit of measurement—but fairness, or political justice, or whatever you want to call the characteristic quality of a well-governed society.”
“Right. That was the philosophical part. Then you moved on to history.”
“Well: I did argue that there is evidence to support my claims about the nature of money. I claimed that it is because money’s central idea is that concept of universal economic value, and because the appropriate standard of value has to be a political one, that money as we know it today was first invented by the collision of the Mesopotamian inventions of literacy, numeracy, and accounting, with the notion of the equal social value of every member of the tribe that the primitive Dark Age Greeks had.”
“Ah yes. Well, you could be right about that—but it doesn’t seem to be that important if you aren’t. After all, money is still with us, so we can test your account of what it really is right here and now. How it was invented doesn’t really matter—and since we’ll never know, why worry?”
“That’s one way of looking at it—ever the philistine. But you’re right that the real test of my biography is how well it explains money today—and our problems with it, and how to start solving them. So carry on.”
“Well then, the history part. This is where the murder mystery began. You started out by praising the clarity of ancient Chinese monetary thought. You explained that their philosophers and emperors understood perfectly that money is a tool of government, and that the extent to which economic value is used to co-ordinate social activity, and the question of what the standard should be, are therefore to be determined solely by reference to how they contribute to the successful government of the country.”
“That’s right: to ‘peace and order in the sub-celestial realm’ as they more poetically put it.”
“Revolution, more like, if you ask me. But we’ll come to that in a moment. Anyway, then you told the story of Europe’s remonetisation in the Middle Ages. The real story here, you said, was a long-running battle between sovereigns and their subjects over the management of the standard. The Europeans, you seemed to be saying, were less concerned about the applicability of the concept of universal economic value—but they were very much concerned with what its standard was, because both sovereigns and subjects understoodonly too well that making the pound worth more or less in terms of real goods and services meant the redistribution of wealth and incomes.”
“Exactly. And especially, redistribution to the sovereign from his subjects.”
“Right. Seigniorage. The story you told was that as the monetary economy grew, so there were more and more subjects interested in the question of the standard—since they didn’t want to pay excessive seigniorage to their sovereign. They complained about it
Similar Books
