Brilliant by putting the finger on the wound! I am completely with you. The functions of the money in the textbooks are relicts from 18th/19th century thinkers who tried in a physical sciences approach to describe money as a phenomenal entity. This outdated view is completely misleading us today. Time to look closer and go to a structural view!
Waiting for your next consciousness newsletter....
When economists define money by its functions its usually unclear how those functions relate, whether by AND or by OR.
This functional definition also overlooks the legal dimension, which says that money is defined by law, not by whatever happens to be used for those functions.
My brother uses the analogy of people who think that they understand the entire hydroelectric power system because they know how to operate a light switch.
It seems like you referred to the (design) concept of 'affordances', though it wasn't mentioned in the text - it's worth reading about, amongst others in the book The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman.
It’s absolutely true that most people don’t have any idea of the structure. In learning about MMT, I was surprised by a whole money system and institution that I had been blind to. I thought of money only as something to exchange for goods and services and thought it was the same for governments as for households.
I like this angle, but I suspect that consensus on a definition of the structure of money depends upon consensus on what its function ought to be. Would you critique my simplistic understanding of money as a trusted metric of the debt that we owe strangers (as opposed to friends and family)? Should the structural definition say something more about what causes us to believe in or trust a particular metric of debt?
Brett, you have done some pretty amazing things... This is at the top. This is such a special piece.
Hi Brett
Brilliant by putting the finger on the wound! I am completely with you. The functions of the money in the textbooks are relicts from 18th/19th century thinkers who tried in a physical sciences approach to describe money as a phenomenal entity. This outdated view is completely misleading us today. Time to look closer and go to a structural view!
Waiting for your next consciousness newsletter....
When economists define money by its functions its usually unclear how those functions relate, whether by AND or by OR.
This functional definition also overlooks the legal dimension, which says that money is defined by law, not by whatever happens to be used for those functions.
My brother uses the analogy of people who think that they understand the entire hydroelectric power system because they know how to operate a light switch.
Dear Brett, thanks for another fantastic effort.
It seems like you referred to the (design) concept of 'affordances', though it wasn't mentioned in the text - it's worth reading about, amongst others in the book The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman.
Keep it up!
It’s absolutely true that most people don’t have any idea of the structure. In learning about MMT, I was surprised by a whole money system and institution that I had been blind to. I thought of money only as something to exchange for goods and services and thought it was the same for governments as for households.
What is a scholarly contribution
I like this angle, but I suspect that consensus on a definition of the structure of money depends upon consensus on what its function ought to be. Would you critique my simplistic understanding of money as a trusted metric of the debt that we owe strangers (as opposed to friends and family)? Should the structural definition say something more about what causes us to believe in or trust a particular metric of debt?