What the hell is money? 1 of 2

[pengiswoof]

"Maple leaves or dirt or smiles." Hilarious. Great video!

[wort148]

This oft repeated narrative of the development of money is not based in any historical records or accounts. Virtual credit systems preceded currency which was developed as a way of quantifying debts. Currency even preceded barter. It appears that the only time barter was ever used in primitive societies was between strangers and potential enemies, and in civilizations when currency systems collapsed and people were acculturated with anti-communal market relations.

Anyway, I dig your videos.

[juliaisafilmbuff123]

@wort148 I was about to say.

[dpapaioannow]

pieces of paper or metal with pictures on them

[Chichiri520]

I always though economics classes as boring but I learned more from the first few minutes of your video than in an entire year in a class put together.

[Maphisto86]

@Chichiri520

Can you ask for your money back? ; )

[busybuzzbuzz]

"first and last appearance of 'medium of exchange' in a children's cartoon" :- )

this is a little hard to hear especially for me with only one ear to hear with.

[trollinirl]

dang you're a cutie, thanks for the informative vids!

[muckstar23]

change is good-can you spare any?

[tuberesponder]

What's More. that thing you held up, is NOT "money". but a CRIME. it says so right on it, "LEGAL TENDER"

Even worse, it's legal tender for "all DEBT public and PRIVATE."

"real Money" is not standard, it's emergent.

When the people with the SPEARS and "TOOLS" decided that can stab and beat the guy for his tiger skins unless he take what they insist in exchange, "legal tender", then the CRIME is the STANDARD.

[tuberesponder]

Gah, exchange values, use values are factors of the subjective value.

i keep stumbling across older videos... looked at some new ones, but the misconceptions of "value" and the pretense of fractured values seem to still plague the new things too.

If you stard from a WRONG PREMISE all that follows is also a wrong premis.

unless talking about objective QUALITIES like mass, elemental content, alloy ratios, etc, that are testable with science (even then there are problems) IT'S SUBJECTIVE VALUE.

[111gate]

What ever happen to supply and demand. Your videos though amusing, fail to note a variety of variables when analyzing current monetary trends. Eventually the barter system boils down to two individuals opinion of Time,Materials and self-worth. But don't worry, you enlightened highly educated college loners will get your chance to put your opinions to the test soon.

[brendanmcooney]

Re supply and demand: follow the link to my wordpress blog. See the draft script for video 12 of "the law of value".

[princeofexcess]

you are correct in a very vague way. Value of Money is measured in the willingness of people to accept money as payment. Which means its extremely dependent on faith in money. If people realize that money is just paper whole economy can collapse into a recession. Because money has NO REAL VALUE (its not backed by labor but by willingness to accept it as payment) hyper inflation is a real possibility. every economic class will teach you that paper money has no real value.

[princeofexcess]

thats not the biggest problem with barter. Exchange value can be settled through bargain(its inefficient but not nearly as inefficient as fallowing problems) . The biggest problem with no medium of exchange is that not everybody wants the other goods (so we might have to go find the goods other people want and try to trade for goods we have) and cost of transport of goods. (you have to take the goods you want to trade and the other side must do this as well)

[GabrielZamoraM]

Interesting thanks

[ExMachine]

I remember reading somewhere that all the gold mined in history could fit in just a few olympic size swimming pools (perhaps 2-3).

I can't vouch for the veracity of that, but doesn't gold thus have a value more as a scarce 'resource' rather than as a product of human labour (the costs of mining presumably being ruthlessly reduced to a minimum)?

[ExMachine]

I think i followed this more or less.

Not entirely clear on the relation between the labour value of money and the exchange value; - the more there is to exchange the more valuable money is (roughly), but this relies on money having a certain (relatively fixed) Labour value in the first place. Is that it?

Excuse my British spellings.

[puzzey83]

what are you talking about money doesnt measure labour, thats not the issue, the issue is access to money and being treated fairly. certain products that are hand made have a greater value and therefore costs much more, so how can you say money has nothing to do with the amount of labour, there is a relationship ..you cant deny it,

[marsCubed]

puzzey83,

It makes sense to have opinions; just not all of them.

If you look over your previous comment then you might discover that you have managed to state opposite views as a hard hitting argument with yourself.

This is quite an achievement in the space available.

although almost perfectly self referencing and counter poised. It does beg a question though as it presents itself as an opposition to something other than the logic.

pro then anti in opposite order? or different locations?

[puzzey83]

there is such a thing called vulgar marxism, so dont get it twisted, half of what you know about marx is not even true!

[CajunCommie]

Well, Lenin talks about "vulgar marxism" being the widely-read but largely misunderstood ideas of Marx in circulation in the Russian working class and revolutionaries.

[mamamiamatail]

When you get right down to it, money really is a nothing thing. It's nothing more than what I think is a false belief system.

If you were stranded on an island, and I gave you 10 trillion dollars. Yet you had no drinkable water, polluted air, and nothing to eat. What good is that money?

It isn't any good. What really does matter and what really does have true value are the earth's resources and people. Not money. Money really is a nothing thing.

[Questfortruth86]

Money doesn't measure value, money merely allows for the creation of aggregate price indices (marketability). Value is purely subjective, it's never measured, only graded. The labor theory of value is self-evidently false. Commodities are broken down into exchange value and use value; commodities which have high exchange values become money, due to their high degree of marketability. The exchange value stems from it's use value. Money is purely a media of exchange.

[DemonKlownRiot]

thanx for an educational lesson on money :D

[silencemagazine]

I gather from the majority of your videos that you aren't exactly pro capitalist, however I must say this is a great explanation of money.

Personally I think in a free society, socialism & capitalism (or any other system one chooses to live in) can work in harmony if property and contract are respected.

Certainly this government protected corporatist state is ruining things for thinkers of the economic left and right.

[brendanmcooney]

How can capitalism (the private ownership of means of production) and socialism (the collective owndership of means of production) coexist in the same society? They assume two fundamentally different concepts of property and therefore two fundamentally different methods of organizing human working activity.

[silencemagazine]

Obviously I wasn't speaking of state run socialism. But I'm making an argument of keeping the state out of the economy all together but to only honor private property. W/o federal regulation you could have Waco's, Jim Jones sects. You live in the society of your choosing.

[silencemagazine]

If you have a group that goes out to buy property together and want to set up a sect of society where the means of production inside the community are owned by the community then they should be free to do so. I would urge them to do so by contract otherwise any person (in a free society) should be allowed to leave that community (unless bound by contractual terms). Therefore, capitalism and a form of socialism can coexist as long as neither are state run.

[brendanmcooney]

How do you suppose that workers are supposed to buy means of production?

And when you use the word "freedom" you are not referring to any of the ways in which social relations established through markets exert coercive influence on people's "free" choices? In other words, do you not believe that outside of the short term bond of a contract there is a wider background of social relations established thru markets that also has a material form and limits freedoms?

[Psumescroat]

Hey man,i am writing i a rpo marxist essay for european history and i consider myself pretty well educated theory but i have a question regarding the LTV or money in general. Would you or other marxists be pro or against gold backed currency, and also what are the main flaws with free price. And previous countries adhering to the LTV or other price fixing policies have experienced problems with shortages and surpluses how do you suggest we fix that?

[brendanmcooney]

I am not going to be able to answer all that here. In general I think Marxists would not advocate for or against a gold standard. Either way capitalism is capitalism. They are more interested in understanding how money works in a capitalist society. In terms of "adhering to the LTV" this is a misunderstanding about the LTV that I sometimes hear: that marxists want to impose the LTV on society. Capitalism already "adheres" to the LTV. Marx's work was devoted to understanding the nature of this.

[Psumescroat]

oh ok. Alright I think im getting a better grasp of this, the Marx just expanded and studied the nature of the LTV. Even if this is unrelated to the LTV, But why do you think countries like the USSR or Venezuela today experienced shortages?

[Questfortruth86]

"and also what are the main flaws with free price."

There are no flaws with free prices. Marx merely didn't allow the creation of price indices because he couldn't. Marxian theory does not allow for the emergence of money. Since money can only emerge through a free market system, where property and the means of production are owned by the people, rather than the state. Where the free exchange of goods and services are unknown, there is no use for money at all.

[brendanmcooney]

Wow. you obviously know nothing at all about Marx's theory of money, price or value. Marx's theory of value begins with an examination of the phenomenon of money and commodities and seeks to understand what it means when the social labor process is coordinated through exchange rather than previous forms of direct social production relations. Marx begins his analysis with an analysis of this free exchange, without other intervening or distorting factors.

[Questfortruth86]

"wow. you obviously know nothing at all about Marx's theory of money, price or value."

No I don't, unlike Marx, I actually understand these concepts and don't confuse them.

[brendanmcooney]

How can you critique a theory that you don't understand? You keep posting false statements about what Marx really said. If you want to critique any theory you need to have an understanding of that theory. Otherwise you are just a troll. Trolls will be blocked.

[Questfortruth86]

Marx doesn't believe in the LTV? A notion which claims there is a categorical calculable measure of value?

[brendanmcooney]

Marx is all about the LTV. You just don't understand the LTV. You say things like "Marx doesn't allow for the emergence of money" when money is a key component of his analysis of a commodity economy. If you don't understand Marx then how come you are so certain he is wrong?

[Questfortruth86]

No, you don't understand what I'm talking about. Money may only emerge from a free market system where individuals own the means of production. Where the free exchange of goods and services is entirely unknown, there is no use for money. Marx may believe in money, but the system he advocates would eliminate it completely. I know Marx is about the LTV, and I know the LTV comes from the interaction through the various phases of production. But it is a priori false, all of that is meaningless.

[brendanmcooney]

I agree with you about the conditions for the emergence of money. Marx would agree as well. Marx doesn't actually "advocate" any specifics about post-capitalist economies. But if he did what would that have to do with his analysis of the way money works in a society of free exchange between autonomous producers?

If you are going to make ridiculous statements about a priori truth you might want to back them up with an actual argument so that you don't look like a belligerent ideologue.

[Questfortruth86]

My comment was simple... money cannot measure value. Value cannot be measured, it's only graded. It's an ordinal scale.

[Individualistico]

You have the wrong idea on why money improves on the barter economy. It's not to measure labor, but to facilitate trade between two people where person X wants what person Y has, but person Y does not not want what person X has. So person Y receives money from person X. Then Y can go buy what he actually wants from person Z who didn't want what Y had.

[brendanmcooney]

yawn. Yes everyone knows how exchange works. Thank you for that brilliant algebraic exercise in the obvious. Now on to more important questions: how are the alliquot parts of a social labor process divided? What social relations are implied by commodity exchange? How does one measure their contribution to the social product relative to another's? How do we know we are receiving a fair deal when we exchange commodities? It is these social relations behind exchange that the LTV seeks to explain.

[Individualistico]

It depends on what you mean by "fair deal." I don't see anything unfair about trade, because both sides of a trade profit from it. Maybe you think think they should profit, equally, I don't know, but I see no reason why they should or that that should be advocated.

[brendanmcooney]

You see no reason why a person would want a fair deal when they buy something? Isn't that the dominant thought on anyone's mind when they go shopping? Go ask anybody on the street if they want a fair deal when they buy stuff.

[Individualistico]

No, I'm not looking for a "fair deal" when I go shopping. I'm just looking for the best deal. What does "fair" mean in your mind?

[Individualistico]

No. Money is not for exchanging things based on the amount of labor that went into making things. That's not what money measures. People are not paid in proportion to the labor they exert. In the socialist ideal, they would. But, not in a market economy.

[brendanmcooney]

Yes people are not paid in proportion to the value they create. It's good to see we agree about the existence of capitalist exploitation= that the value of the labor contained in the total social product is greater than the value of the means of subsistence bought by wages.

[Individualistico]

I see no reason why people should be paid according to how much labor they exert.

[catgumart]

This is to Individualistico who says "I see no reason people should be paid according to how much labor they exert"

okay you can work 40 hours a week for 10$ and I'll work 10 hours a week for 40$, that should be okay with you as you see no reason why people should be paid according to how much labor they exert...I bet at the end of the week you will be more tired and grumpy then me and wish you had some extra money to spend.now do you see why people should be fairly compensated for there labor?

[puzzey83]

then go build me a house for free

[Mekaniac]

rofl at the "medium of exchange" joke. so true =)

[zach345621]

this video is just to true. i like the way it was explained.. very nicely done

[seigneurvoland666]

LOL "such as assholes"

[Ignare]

Where the hell do you find these videos ?

[brendanmcooney]

archive. org

[pookypoo77]

you are really attractive. there arent too many men I know or meet in person that present a sex appeal like you do....it must be that brain of yours... *sigh*

[groskino]

caveman? maybe ricardo was truly the last bourgeois being honest about investigating capitalism. money was created during the development of trade, divison of work and the circulation of commoditys. money dont circulate commodity as tool, but it itself is a commodity.

[brendanmcooney]

yes, but by circulating commodities it erodes it's status as measure of value (granted by its status as universal equivalent, it's commodity nature). In the current context we have to grapple with the idea of money totally divorced from its commodity base- credit money backed merely by faith in the US economy.

[groskino]

for me, a hardboiled question. i am not as good in the field of economy as i should be. i will have a look. thanks for your quick response by the way.

[nbm34]

BRILLIANT WELL presented vid with the art of subtle entertainment. My brain hurts ....now I go to the 2nd vid on this facinating subject.

Brendan is one of the best sites on the whole tube. He is a economic scientist if ever there was one for sure.

[gbg112]

love the pipe

if i was in that prision i would be the riches man there

joke {think about there new system}

[vermeerembrandt]

and pipe!

[vermeerembrandt]

hahahahaha. good concepts. i hope you were being sarcastic about showing off your book collection, glasses, and whine. hahaha. pretty funny.

[topicalone]

I ask: What's the point of the wine?

Lot of funny parts in this video though... "last time exchange value was used in a kid's cartoon"

"assholes."

^^LOL

Good stuff.

[nickglais]

Another good video