Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: understanding money
Message-ID: <1142@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 00:37:06 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1142
Posted: Tue Feb  4 00:37:06 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:05:17 EST
References: <1038@mmintl.UUCP> <324@frog.UUCP> <1091@mmintl.UUCP> <342@frog.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 59

In article <342@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes:
>>> Money, which is simply a common medium of exchange, is not a
>>> measure of value.  It is used as a measure because
>>> calculation is easy and because the expectations of future
>>> trade that are based on past trade are fairly reliable.
>
>> If money is used as a measure of value, it is a measure of value.  What
>> else would it mean for something to be a measure of value?
>
>It is used as a measure of values, not of value.  What money
>"measures" is constrained by individual valuation, but is
>not a measure of that valuation.  Individual valuation is
>preferential; it is a choice among alternatives.  Money
>measures what may be expected in future trade.  The things
>for which money is traded have value.  Thus what money does
>(when it is reliable) is provide a means of assessing what
>values must be given up in order to have other values, *only
>insofar as values may be obtained by means of a market*.
>Money simplifies the complex process of assessing what is
>possible.  (Incidentally, money is a fallout of property
>rights.  It loses its magic where ownership and trade of the
>means of production are completely forbidden.  Its
>objectivity is the consequence of the objectivity of
>property rights.)

You are arguing that "measure of value" means "measure of absolute,
intrinsic value".  But we have agreed that there is no such thing.
What I mean by "measure of value" is essentially what you mean
by "measure of values".

I do not accept that individual value `is' preference among alternatives;
i.e. that a person's complete preference list constitutes a complete
explication of his values.  I believe a utility function is closer to
the true nature of individual value.  I will agree that it is very
difficult to determine what a person's utility function is; but then
it is difficult to determine an individual's complete preference list,
too.

>> The claim is that understanding the exchange of money solely for other
>> money does not give an understanding of money.
>
>Understanding the exchange of one kind of money for another
>kind of money requires understanding what an exchange is,
>and furthermore requires knowing what indirect exchange is.
>An understanding of indirect exchange implies an
>understanding of money.  Only if you qualify the
>understanding by its incompleteness can you support the
>absurdity that is your claim.

You have jumped into a philosophical exchange about the nature of
understanding, and I believe your objection was based on a misunder-
standing of what was being said.  Perhaps a better statement of what I
was saying in the sentence quoted above would be acheived by substituting
the word "knowledge" for the first occurance of the word "understanding".
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "indirect exchange", but I am
reasonably certain that understanding it was *not* part of my condition.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108