The Value of Money
March 29, 2009 by Caro
In March, 2009, co-host of CNBC’s The Call, Larry Kudlow, lit a U.S. dollar note, destroying part of it. He claimed that the burning dollar represented the value of our money.
Kudlow was introducing a segment on the U. S. Government’s new Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility and he said that the program - aimed at energizing the asset-backed securities market that subsidizes loans to consumers and businesses - would result in “a lot of people lighting flame to the U.S. dollar which is going down in flames.” http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/kudlow-burns-money
Did he really believe that the burning note was in fact, burning money?
Modern money is not really a thing at all; it’s just an agreement made between us all, that makes it real.
Historically, we’ve seen money evolve: from barter of objects, to coins, and then into paper money in AD806 in China. Then in the 1990s electronic-money developed out of the use of the telegraph in the 19th century.
Electronic Funds Transfer, fiat or faith money, securities and bonds, are all based on nothing tangible – magic? Our much loved, hard earned money holds its value only because we all agree that it does. And the agreement could be to use anything - the dollar, Yen or a local exchange currency.
In the U.S. the dollar currency is protected by federal law. Indeed, were Kudlow to be convicted of defacing the dollar he’d be eligible for up to six months in prison.
But there’s another, perhaps deeper reason why many of us gasp when we see a national currency defaced: it’s like burning an effigy. It’s what that dollar note represents in the psyche of those who live in countries using the dollar as legal tender, rather than the piece of paper itself.
It’s the same feeling if we lose our credit card - instant panic – not because we love the piece of plastic, but because of the implications to our security, lifestyle and identity. Not to mention the hassle of cancelling the card and getting a new one.
So it’s not the bead, coin, paper or plastic that we love and protect, but the value these represent. Money is a construct of our human ability to agree on the worth of something – an object, experience or thought - that we desire to have. So we create a collective story about money and how it can get us what we want.
The more meaningless the tokens we exchange in terms of actual physical things, the greater our reliance on trust and our shared sense of money’s reality.
When we see the dollar note burned, just for a moment, the token of our trust has disappeared or been made worth-less. Of course, if we lived on an island with coconut trees as our only food source, then coconuts become the agreed value of exchange.
Currency is relative in its value, depending on where you live and in what time. This means money has no fixed value. It changes to suit the place and times in which it’s used.
In the recent event of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) which really started to show its effects in the middle of 2007 and into 2008, the world stock markets have fallen, large financial institutions have collapsed or been bought out, and governments in even the wealthiest nations have had to come up with rescue packages to bail out their financial systems.http://www.globalissues.org/article/768/global-financial-crisis
Conversations previously on the fringes are now centre-stage – global currency, local currencies and the future of money. It’s as if there’s a shift in consciousness that’s challenging our collective agreement about how we value money.
With the G20 Summit about to start in London on April 2, 2009, a United Nations panel of economists has proposed a new global currency reserve that would take over the US dollar-based system which has been used for decades.
The panel says that a new global reserve would be “feasible, non- inflationary and could be easily implemented”. http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-business/un-proposes-new-global-currency-reserve-20090328-9egx.html
But what would a global currency look like – and who would administer it?
On the other side of the coin, Bernard Lietaer, currently a Research Fellow at the Center for Sustainable Resources of the University of California at Berkeley suggests local currencies are viable complimentary currencies that can, and are, being used alongside national currencies.
In The Future of Money: Beyond Greed and Scarcity, Lietaer points out that barter transactions are occurring in 1,900 local communities in the world, including over a hundred in the US. They are issuing their own currency, independently from the national money system.
This local currency doesn’t need to be small-scale. Like BerkShares, a local currency for the Berkshire region, dubbed in 2006 a “great economic experiment” by the New York Times, BerkShares “are a tool for community empowerment, enabling merchants and consumers to plant the seeds for an alternative economic future for their communities”. There are now over two million BerkShares in circulation.
Another example of complementary currencies is frequent flyer points issued by airlines and Lietaer says that anybody with access to a PC can start legal currency system.
For more information on starting a complementary currency go to The Access Foundation (link below).
Lietaer says that our biggest problem with money and currencies is unconsciousness. “We are not aware of what we are doing around money.We haven’t really thought about what money does to us. We believe
it’s neutral, so it doesn’t matter. But it’s not neutral: it deeply shapes us and our societies.”
Is an awakening consciousness around money the GFC’s silver lining? Could it be that a three-tiered global/local system is evolving with a global currency, national currencies and local complementary currencies all happily co-existing? If so, how would it work?
The idea is fascinating. If you have thoughts you’d like to share on this please go to our forum.
Or email Caroline: caroline@creativechangemakers.com.au
Sources:
http://research.microsoft.com
http://www.transaction.net/money/book/index.html
http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/local_currencies.html
Access Foundation - http://www.accessfoundation.org
Caroline Fisher©2009






[...] THE VALUE OF MONEY [...]
[...] Read more from the original source: The Value of Money : Creative Change [...]
Business Credit Building System…
Low, low rates for credit card merchant accounts. The proper choice of payment gateway is another vital element which will contribute to your success or failure as an online business. A virtual terminal can be accessed securely from any computer connec…
Community currencies are an important tool for the the re-localisation of economies and the re-invigoration of smaller independent businesses across Australia in the face of chain store dominance. Australia is set to implement it’s first dollar-backed community currency callled the Baroon Dollar in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland of Queensland. An initiative of Sustainable Maleny and the newly established Australian Institute for Community Currencies Inc (AICC) will see the currency launched in mid 2009.
[...] we’re questioning this choice then what needs to change, and how are we going to be part of the solution? Filed Under: Business & FinanceTagged: aristotle, compound interest, ecological and social [...]
The Baroon Dollar starting to sink even before its launch
Hi
Please at least ask a few questions before printing a bit of PR as news or credible information. Please, do not believe what we say but ask a few obvious questions from the Directors
Thanks
Max
The over-hyped PR spin campaign is starting to unwind as unanswered questions relating to ownership and the cost to local businesses has generated much anger causing the local Chamber of Commerce to pull away from supporting it.
This has not been helped by the heavy handed sales team and the accusations made to local shop keepers who say “no” that they are not supporting local trade!!
The heart of the issue is that the actual ownership and control of the real money ($50,000) that will be swapped for the Baroon discount money is in the hands of a few individuals via a privately owned company.
The shareholders, directors and managers comprise of a small tight group who opposed the local sports groups in the community Parklands project. They lobbied for a garden and to be able to develop some land as a green industrial park.
The leader of this group is Paul Veit who is a controversial wealthy South African property developer who has received much criticism in Maleny for the effects of higher rent rises on local business (see letters in Range News).
The Directors have pulled all information about themselves and the details of the costs to local business from the official web site. However a quick look at http://www.linkedin.co for the names of Sue Mihovilovich and Darren Mitchell to see a quite different tale of actual work experience in community development
The Baroon PR machine puts out that Paul Veit and his wife are simply retired informal supporters and also goes to great lengths to make sure that the group is not associated with their other formal positions that of being Directors of Maple St Co op and the Up Front Cafe Co op (Paul Viet, Fern Viet, Sue Mihovilovich and Kate Crawford). This is because in this role they have actually decided not to back the Baroon Dollar in the same way that they are demanding other businesses to.
Questions to the staff revived muffled embarrassment and the explanation offered is that the same directors reckon that they cannot afford the 5% discount that shopkeepers get hit with. They also say that most of the products and services they buy are from off the Range so the Baroon Dollar cannot be used and the few local suppliers of local produce want cash. They cannot afford to have these dollars in addition to the existing Bunya barter system.
So with the Chamber of Commerce comprising of all the main retailers and the two big Co-op’s saying no who else apart from the few die hard alternatives and Paul and his gang are left to buy the $50,000 worth of Baroon Dollars.
So far the media have been lazy and happy to reprint the PR hype without bothering to ask any of the key organizations why they are not supporting the scheme (scam) but now are starting to ask the obvious. When this happens watch Paul and his mates duck for cover and try to find someone else to blame.