h1

What the hell is money?

What the hell is money?

part one:

part two:

We will start our investigation of money by looking at some of the basic problems of barter. We’ll see how money solves these problems but, in doing so, creates some problems of its own. As money evolves from, shells and salt to gold, to paper money, to bank notes and credit instruments, we will see a common theme reappearing over and over, taking different forms as money takes different forms: that money is always trying to resolve the contradiction between being a measure of value and a medium of circulation.

To begin with barter:

duck tales clip.

This clip is pretty accurate. The basic problem of barter is how to measure the values at which commodities exchange. We call this exchange value. Without some notion of exchange value we have no idea how many shoes to trade for how many potatoes, how many eggs for swords….

All commodities have two different aspects that relate to their exchange value: before they can be used they have to be made. Thus, all commodities have a use value and a labor value.

Use value tells us how much demand there is for something, and thus lets workers know how much of a commodity to produce. But it still doesn’t tell us how much of one commodity exchanges for another.

…Which is why we need a labor theory of value which states that commodities exchange for one another based around the amount of labor that went into making them. In early barter economies, when considering a trade the logic is always: “How long would it take me to make that myself?” Similarly, when I go into a store to buy something with my money, that money represents work I was paid for. When I exchange my labor with the labor of the person who made the commodity I am valuing my labor in relation to theirs.

And this is what money allows us to do that barter can’t: measure the amount of value in commodities so that we can exchange them.
Duck tales clip.

All sorts of commodities have been used as money. No matter what commodity is chosen by society as money, that commodity becomes a universal equivalent, meaning the values of all commodities are expressed relative to the money commodity.

So money solves the problem of exchange by internalizing the duality of use value and labor value. Money then does two different, yet connected things:

1. it measures value. (labor value)
2. it allows commodities to circulate. (its use)

Smarty-pants economists say money is a “measure of value” and a “medium of circulation”. It measures value because it is a commodity itself, made by human labor, and thus has a labor value. [In this day and age, when our paper money is no longer backed by the gold commodity we forget that for the vast majority of human history money has been a tangible commodity. For now, let's put aside the thorny question of non-convertible paper money, and just deal with money as a commodity.] Because money represents a clear labor value it is safe to use as a measure of value. In contrast, if we used something without a labor value- maple leaves, or dirt, or smiles, we would have no guarantee that this money would be valued by anyone else. If you sell a pair of shoes for a handful of dirt, you are screwed because nobody else wants your handful of dirt because they could just go get their own handful of dirt. Similarly, if the value of the paper dollar was to fall tomorrow, we’d all be screwed because paper has very little value. So what makes a money strong is its ability to represent the value of commodities in the economy, and this is usually a result of money being a commodity with a high value itself.

But money isn’t just used to measure value, its used to circulate commodities (it’s second property as a medium of circulation.) This means that it takes on an exchange value different from its labor value.[camera close up] Money expresses the value of all commodities as they relate to each other. Thus it becomes worth “what it will buy” instead of “what it took to make it.” We call this its reflex value, because its a reflection of the value of all commodities in relation to each other.

The reflex value is formed by the relation of the supply of money to its demand. If there is less of the money commodity than is needed to circulate goods in the economy then the price of the money commodity goes up (deflation). If the supply of the money commodity rises above the amount needed to circulate commodities then the price of the money commodity goes down (inflation).

Let’s take a look at a modern day example of a money commodity: the use of cigarettes as money in prisons. Here’s a 2006 Onion article:

March 31, 2004 Smoking Ban Collapses Fragile Prison Economy
SOLEDAD, CA—A pen-wide smoking ban instituted last week devastated the Salinas Valley State Prison’s fragile economy, inmate #67545 said Monday. “There were occasional fluctuations or recalibrations, but a bar of soap used to equal three cigarettes; a Snickers, four; a Percocet, 15,” said Kenneth Oglivy, a former WorldCom accountant serving 10 years for embezzlement. “After the ban, the value of a carton of Newports climbed to 50 times its 2003 value. Now that those cigarettes are gone, it’s total chaos.” Oglivy said Salinas Valley inmates will have to devise a new system of value based on some other commodity, such as assholes.

In order for money to do its job it needs to have a stable supply so that disasters like this don’t happen. If we used potatoes for money we’d be screwed because potatoes go bad after awhile, and every time there was a bad harvest there’d be a shortage of money, etc. Gold works well because it is a stable commodity with a stable supply.

But the demand for money is constantly changing. Production and consumption change pace as an economy grows and shrinks over the course of years, months and weeks. And so the reflex value is shifting. This destabilizes money, makes it less dependable, unable to send appropriate signals, or measure value over time. Thus the two aspects of money- that it is a measure of value and a medium of circulation- or, that is has a labor value and a reflex value- are in conflict with each other. Now, if the reflex value fluctuates only slightly above and below the basic labor value, then we don’t have much of a problem. This fluctuating value allows money to make quick adjustments to changes in production and consumption. But if the two values start to diverge radically from each other they express serious economic problems.

There are solutions to this conflict. Both attempt to equilibrate the demand and supply for money so that the reflex value of money is held closer to the the labor value of money. These two solutions are Hoarding and Credit.

Hoarding allows for the adjustment of the money supply- by taking money out of circulation and saving it, we shrink the supply of available money. We can then inject money back into circulation when it is needed. Personal savings are a type of hoarding. When we hoard money it becomes a “store of value”.

Credit allows us to forego the use of money until it comes time to pay the debt. This shrinks the current demand for money. It allows more buying and selling to happen than there is actually money for. But when it comes to settle accounts real money is actually needed. Thus money becomes a “means of payment”.

So these additional aspects of money- that it can be a “store of value” and a “means of payment”- both must be seen as ways of resolving the contradictions between money as a measure of value a medium of circulation. But they don’t ever actually resolve the contradiction fully- they just move the contradiction to a different level.

For instance- Credit creates a web of debt as people defer payment, sell debt, use more credit to pay debt. The amount of debt can actually become larger than the amount of money available to use as a means of payment. In the abstract, this lays the foundation for a speculative bubble- when prices are inflated above their inherent value- like we have seen in the recent real estate market. At some point the market has to be “corrected”- that is- the artificial credit values which are just based on a promise to pay in the future- must be brought back in line with their actual values. Another problem with credit is that it assumes that the value of money will stay constant until the time comes to pay a debt. But this is not always the case. I will deal more with credit in another video.

Hoarding creates its own problems: If everyone is storing value by hoarding money, people aren’t circulating money and thus buying and selling slows down. This can create crisis as well. duck tales- scrooge in vault.

Circulation is crucial.

Circulate! cartoon

I have discussed the way in which hoarding, credit and changes in the demand and supply of money can interfere with the circulation of money. But in economics, whenever we talk about what could go wrong, we also are implying that things do go right a lot of the time. So in addition to asking “what could stop money from circulating and measuring value smoothly?” we also have to ask “what keeps money circulating and measuring value?”

Essentially we need a mechanism which circulates money solely for the sake of circulating money. Only this can’t counter the effects of hoarding. And this same process must continually affirm money’s ability to measure value.

The capitalist mode of production does this. Capitalist production circulates money solely for the sake of circulating money. In so doing it reproduces value and reaffirms money’s role as a measurement of this value. And that is what my next video will be about.

27 comments

  1. I am unsatisfied with my characterization of the reflex value of money being characterized by supply and demand for money. I worry this is a misreading. But i am still not sure how this reflex is determined. I plan to to attempts some reading about the “monetary expression of labor time” but am wondering if other folks might be able to point me in the right direction on this issue.


    • ok, i still have not made quite a gestaldt on some of the dialectical aspects of price theory.

      money is meant to have its own labor value while also serving as a yardstick for other commodities, so there seems to be an incompatibility. use value and exchange value appear to be potentially incompatible, labor value and exchange value, but also labor value as being represented in prices and the variability of price as a determinant of anything really, could you make some diagrams on this or a video on the dialectics, or perhaps one on price theory?


  2. Hello Kapitalism101,

    I’m very much a beginner at Marxist teachings and this may be good for you to work out how to teach us.

    Your definition of reflex sounds good to me, but I feel that the reflex value of a piece of paper may not be as simple as supply and demand for real money. I think of the finance company salesman saying “This piece of paper is worth “, and he can be tricking me (he just wrote it out without being able to back it up). So corporate conduct and corporate integrity have something to do with it … maybe …. dunno … but these are thoughts from an unknowing, but incluttered mind.

    Tim Douglas


  3. Ah, this was way clearer than David Harvey’s class, that third chapter, definitely a good supplement i think though. does credit and banking arise from the natural incentive to hoard? a means to stimulate circulation and production, or is the credit more related to the inefficiency for a capitalist to save up in order to invest into a new project?


    • I have a video called “what is credit?” that speaks to this to some extent. Credit is there resolve some of the contradictions in the money form. It allows exchange to happen here in the present even though the real value will be created in the future. It allows the spending of future value. It lubricates exchange and measures value. But in doing so it internalizes the contradiction within the credit form itself. Now credit has the problem that money had- the more we use credit to keep exchanges moving faster and faster the more credit begins to diverge from real value- speculative bubbles build up. When not enough real value can be created to pay off this mounting debt the credit market crashes.

      The need for credit is exacerbated by many factors unique to capital. Goods must be sold and if workers can’t afford them they must take credit so that capital can realize its profits. Capital investments in large projects sometimes take years to be paid off meaning that there is a time lag between investment and profit. Credit fills this lag. The crisis tendencies of capital cause a tendency toward a falling rate of profit (see my video on this) which mean that capital must invest its surpluses in the future thru credit markets because there aren’t enough profitable opportunities for investment in the present….


  4. Thanks a lot!


  5. Another bourgeois rant (in four parts): check it out


  6. Hello again,

    Wondering if you’ve run across any of the work of David Graeber, who’s researched the anthropological history of money and debt. He has two interesting articles on them:

    http://blog.longnow.org/2010/04/22/debt-the-first-five-thousand-years/
    http://canopycanopycanopy.com/10/to_have_is_to_owe

    In short, Dr. Graeber’s research suggests that the traditional history of money – of barter breaking down, money being invented to address the double coincidence of wants, and credit evolving from money transactions – is wrong. In reality, barter rarely had any economic significance, and early human cultures invented credit systems to broker exchange. Money was a way of side-stepping the social requirements of credit.

    What impact do you think this has on the explanation of money and credit from a Marxist viewpoint?


    • I’ve not read the Graeber you mention. Sounds interesting. Marx’s concept of money in a capitalist society is not historical, in the sense that the logical structure of capital and the role of money in that structure has a particular ordering of based on the way the different components of capitalist social relations (money, capital, labor, etc.) determine one another. This logical ordering is different than the historical order that these individual components had as they appeared on the world stage. Hence, though money predates capitalism, once capital is ascendant money is wholly subsumed by the domination of capital and must do capital’s bidding: it must measure value and lubricate exchange. So the particular historical debates about the evolution of different forms of money don’t really bear on the logical progression of different forms of money and value in capitalism.


      • That was my intuition as well: Regardless of how money and credit got here on a grand historical scale, you can explain how it works in modern economies. Thanks again.


  7. Hi Brendan, excellent videos. One issue which I am grappling is how the system is not in a constant state of deflation. Importantly, given that there exist increasing returns to scale, and there is dynamic system in which capital substitutes for labor (augmenting output per unit labor), we live in a system where there is ever-increasing output per unit of labor (except for recessionary periods). In this case, each commodity, over time, has a declining labor time content, and effectively commodities should become cheaper and cheaper year by year (i.e. deflation). With the exception of a few sectors where productivity growth is exceptionally high (e.g. computers/electronics) this deflation does not take place. It must be that through money growth, money itself is constantly devalued. You can have zero inflation, but it could be that productivity on aggregate has grown by 5% over the course of the year, and money growth has also grown by 5%, in this case, although there is zero inflation, the value of money has actually fallen and corresponding commodities has fallen. $1 will still buy you the same amount of goods (commodities) as it did last year, but in fact, the very same amount of goods embody less value, as it took less labor to make them as a result of the productivity growth.


  8. If productivity has grown by 10%, but money supply grows by 15% we should expect inflation at 5% (for a given velocity of money). Each unit of money has however actually been devalued in terms of labor time by 15%. What is then key is how much productivity has grown in various sectors, this is effectively determines relative prices… But… there is the important countervailing tendency, for the rate of profit to equalise, given that those sectors which experience higher productivity growth are the same sectors which have become more capital intensive, this can place an upward pressure on prices in those sectors relative to other sectors so the rate of profit equalises.

    Any comments would be most appreciated.


  9. On this issue of supply of real savings as a limiting factor of extending credit is a little flawed. In particular, the federal reserve can supply cheap credit, (even quantitative easing – free money!), created out of nothing. The federal reserve has doesn’t need any deposits in order to do this. Commercial/investment banks with access to federal reserve credit lines can pass on cheap money into the system, but under their discretion (loans will not be extended to the extent that there is fear of default).


  10. why are you deleting comments?


    • I’m not deleting comments. All comments must be approved by me before they appear on the site. This helps keep down spam and zombies. I have now approved your earlier comment.


      • ah I understand. all the best.


  11. I’m interested in your take on the “thorny question of non-convertible paper money.” It would seem that money must itself be a commodity (gold) as its use value is to measure the exchange value of all other commodities. I suppose that token money can substitute for real money to some extent, but it seems that such a substitute for the “real thing” can only lead to all sorts of monetary mischief.


  12. Translated into Macedonian
    http://zahovistika2.blog.mk/2012/04/01/shto-se-pari/


  13. Just so you know I talk about money on a high school level (and from a bourgeois perspective) on my page. I hope to start making movies as well soon but I wanted you to know that I really appreciate yours. I am no Marxist but they are good.

    It is much easier to talk here than on YouTube comments. :)


  14. Gold is an exceedingly rare item, it’s extraction is hard and so keeping up with it as a money standard is hard. But, what about a basket of very rare noble metals? Most of them were not even known to exist by the time Marx wrote the capital or were just scientific curiosities.

    I am not talking about silver, since its availability and extraction makes the labor for extraction less intensive. Keeping it requires a large volume and weight so only countries with a very undeveloped capitalism could used as a standard.

    I’m talking about a basket of metals as equally rare and hard to extract as gold, such as Platinum, Rhodium, Gold, Iridium, Osmium,Palladium, Rhenium.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precious_metal

    Some others others, like Tellurium are rare, but are not extensively used as a commodity, so the mines run slow. But, in case they were intensely, run they could be very expensive since some of them are even rares than gold.

    http://www.noblemetalsllc.com/

    So, maybe a standard based on heavy bars with a standard mixture of all these metals, would hugely increase the availability of money, while still keeping very high the quantity of labor time to extract them.


    • I would like to have rhodium coines.


      • The recent massacre of miners in South Africa was in a mine containing one of a Platinum mine:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marikana_miners%27_strike

        Noble metal production is increasingly important. I think it owes a more Marxist analysis of its economic paper, on the level of what is done with gold.


  15. Videos on YouTube are gone!


    • I got rid of these videos because I don’t like them anymore and because I am preparing (slowly) a new video on money for my Law of Value series.


  16. Any ETA on the new video for money? soz for pestering


    • Myles, The pestering is much appreciated. It reminds me that I have work to do. Unfortunately I am overwhelmed with non-blog commitments at the moment and will not be returning the the Law of Value series until at least the end of the summer.


      • Wow, that is long. What happens: you sick?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 383 other followers

%d bloggers like this: