Money. The world’s unstable concept. Whichever philosopher decided that we needed to use money for everything we do deserves a pat on the back, and a punch in the face. Rather than actually trading raw materials, we are going to put a value on paper in place of those materials because a famous person’s face depicted on it. Excuse me while I invent the 17 dollar bill with Tom Hanks as Woody on it. And while I’m at it, I should go to the Middle East and make the 42 Saudi Riyal bill with Muhammad as No-face.
Seriously though, I can’t figure out how trading paper for stuff is better, so I looked up the philosophy of money trying to figure out not only why we have the modern system of making something worthless and putting a face and number on it, but why when the economy changes we literally change the worth of a number. Guys, 20 equals 20. Always. So why does a 2 dollar an hour job in 1970 give you more than minimum wage today? (Minimum wage in Texas is $7.25) You can’t go around and change these things. Numbers are supposed to be the same forever. So I looked up the book about the philosophy on money and here’s what I found out:
$ It was written in 1900 by the German sociologist and social philosopher, Georg Simmel. - So now I know who to give the pat on the back and the punch in the face to.
$ He found that objects that were too close were not considered valuable and objects that were too far away for people to obtain were also not considered valuable. What was also considered in determining value was the scarcity, time, sacrifice, and difficulties involved in getting objects. In the pre-modern era, beginning with bartering, different systems of exchange for goods and services allowed for the existence of incomparable systems of value. -ok that makes sense but I still don’t see how paper with an American face compared to paper with an Indonesian face is a better comparison. Because when we trade with 3rd world countries, their economy compared to ours makes some pretty weird exchanges. 1 Indonesian rupiah is 0.000077% of a US dollar and that exchange sucks for them. The only way I think we can have stable systems of value is to have a giant international currency for the world to share. That’s never gonna happen and if you really need me to tell you why then tie yourself down to a chair and watch the last 20 years of news stories worldwide.
Now it has it’s upsides like being able to fit into a wallet, and being collectible, but think of the money spent chopping down trees to get the cash in the first place. Then think of the money we’re spending to save the trees because we’re just now realizing how important they are, bearing in mind that if were putting our money towards saving trees we can’t make more cash. Then think about how gosh darn heavy coins are when in large amounts. Now I’m not saying bartering is much better, but the system just doesn't work. So looking back on it, I blame the world for not being perfect. That’s really the only answer.
Seriously though, I can’t figure out how trading paper for stuff is better, so I looked up the philosophy of money trying to figure out not only why we have the modern system of making something worthless and putting a face and number on it, but why when the economy changes we literally change the worth of a number. Guys, 20 equals 20. Always. So why does a 2 dollar an hour job in 1970 give you more than minimum wage today? (Minimum wage in Texas is $7.25) You can’t go around and change these things. Numbers are supposed to be the same forever. So I looked up the book about the philosophy on money and here’s what I found out:
$ It was written in 1900 by the German sociologist and social philosopher, Georg Simmel. - So now I know who to give the pat on the back and the punch in the face to.
$ He found that objects that were too close were not considered valuable and objects that were too far away for people to obtain were also not considered valuable. What was also considered in determining value was the scarcity, time, sacrifice, and difficulties involved in getting objects. In the pre-modern era, beginning with bartering, different systems of exchange for goods and services allowed for the existence of incomparable systems of value. -ok that makes sense but I still don’t see how paper with an American face compared to paper with an Indonesian face is a better comparison. Because when we trade with 3rd world countries, their economy compared to ours makes some pretty weird exchanges. 1 Indonesian rupiah is 0.000077% of a US dollar and that exchange sucks for them. The only way I think we can have stable systems of value is to have a giant international currency for the world to share. That’s never gonna happen and if you really need me to tell you why then tie yourself down to a chair and watch the last 20 years of news stories worldwide.
Now it has it’s upsides like being able to fit into a wallet, and being collectible, but think of the money spent chopping down trees to get the cash in the first place. Then think of the money we’re spending to save the trees because we’re just now realizing how important they are, bearing in mind that if were putting our money towards saving trees we can’t make more cash. Then think about how gosh darn heavy coins are when in large amounts. Now I’m not saying bartering is much better, but the system just doesn't work. So looking back on it, I blame the world for not being perfect. That’s really the only answer.