Chapter 1. Human monetization.

In many contemporary cultures currency has become, freely or compulsorily, a key piece in human relations.

It is difficult to imagine the world without currency. The utopias proposing it, for the time being are unsuccessful. But, at the same time, there is an intuition that currency not always improves human relations, that it may also complicate them. We live in this ambiguity.

In the last few years -as in certain periods of history of monetized societies- «money has stopped being a taboo and has become the king». This sentence belongs to Alain Minc, the right hand of financier Carlo De Benedetti. In his last book, L'argent fou, he says that he «believes in market economy, in capitalism and its ability to move about and renew itself, and therefore he accepts 'the price which must be paid: the weight of money in our society'. The main problem lies in the fact that «our capitalism has no countermodel, it has been discovered that there is only one way of making market economy, and now, within the system itself, a counterpower must be found», without which «class conflicts will again appear» and the legitimity of the present economic system will be put in doubt. «The time has come to say stop, we are on the verge of slipping». The market which only identifies itself with money has become «totalitarian». Today we have «minimum wages» for the rich because the interest ratios are much higher than inflation. «No salary grows in the same proportion¹».

After this surprising accusation, A. Minc stuns us with the solution: «He recommends the introduction of ethics and the resurrection of virtue and morality. Economic and life rules which consist of 'neither selling nor buying shares' and of putting savings in a credit account».

As far as what we know about our economic system, excess production or subconsumption crises, inflation or deflation, poverty and wealth... are difficult-to-solve malfunctions. They appear to belong to the very dynamics of actual capitalism. It is said that they are the unavoidable price of a system which favours progress, development and modernization. Actual socialism does not appear to have overcome these problems, and has even given birth to new ones.

Theoreticians of both systems have considered the monetary problem as a secondary subject in economics. As long as currency was linked to scarce precious metals, it caused problems, but its emission was submitted to some sort of discipline. When currency has freed itself from any actual correlation, and the only discipline is the one imposed by the needs of the states and by the interests of the banks, we come to live a radically new situation, of which we do not know much about. «The position of economists with respect to currency may appear strange. During the 18th century when the banks producing notes multiplied themselves, thanks to which it is possible to carry on a policy to create an autonomous currency, free from the limitations imposed by the production of precious metals, economists launched the idea that currency is a secondary phenomenon which may be ignored when the fundamental economic laws must be studied. This viewpoint, that has existed since then, does not stop them from regularly denouncing the monetary disorders which, according to them, are the cause of the instability of economies. This paradoxal attitude, in any case, is the evidence of the complexity of the role of currency in modern societies²».

While theoreticians discuss, currency runs all over the world, by means of computers, looking for immediate profits, taking advantage of the high interest rates in some countries, buying and selling shares which have no relationship with the value of the companies which emitted them, speculating with real estate, with raw materials or with scarce natural resources... Easy and plentiful money for speculation destroys actual production; worsens the ecologic depredation; dooms millions of people to destitution; increases the traffic of influences, tax evasion, drugs and weapons traffic... Here and there voices are heard which warn against the dangers of speculative economy, made easier by electronic transactions, for actual economy and for the lawful State.

Lorenzo Dionis, a professor at the graduate business school, IESE, explains how serious the situation is. «I remember the warning given in May 1989 by the 1988 Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Maurice Allais, through the paper 'Le Monde', when he said that the volume of dollars which change hands daily reaches 420,000 million, while the actual needs do not go beyond the 12,400 million... No doubt the handling of unexisting money, which makes 'sharks' or 'yuppies' rich in one day with disregard for the difficulties produced to the real company, the one which gives service and produces economic value, cannot be easily accepted. These fictitious businesses have given us 'Black Monday' in 1987, the 'Sad Friday' in 1989, and the next crack which may come in the '90s. In the decade of the '90s, either the real European and world economy become stronger, or capitalism... will crack again³».

On the other hand, a professor of economic policy in the Keita University in Tokio, «compares financial markets with a great casino occupied by speculators with their attention on any possible move», and says that «it becomes more and more difficult to control these financial games [...] because financial markets all over the world are now synchronized and operations are controlled globally, not nationally. We may foresee that the information of the international networks will convert world markets into casinos in the '90s, which will cause the appearance of several 'balloons' and will increase the number of operations that are not based on economic factors⁴».

These recent calls for attention, given by people who know quite well the present system, are to be added up to those of other people who during many years have been warning about the dangers of a currency separated from the actual goods and services market. In 1974, Pierre Mendès-France already set forth these problems, but the way to solve them has not yet been found. «For a long time I have been thinking that it is urgent to protect commercial operations and current transactions from the accidents produced by the wild migrations of capitals. These migrations must be controlled and certain panic or speculation agitations must be prevented. Some sort of police for capital movements should be created. The trend to inflation can be controlled only if a clear and irresistible law brings together the monetary mechanism with the controllable needs of the economic life and exchanges⁵».

Simultaneously with these processes of divorce between real economy and the movement of quick money, basically electronic money, the flow of black money goes on. «As an average, over one ton of bank notes from all over the world arrives in Switzerland every day⁶». Most of this money may be whitened from fiscal fraud, traffic of influences or drugs. «The three great Swiss banks [...] have reacted vigorously against the implications concerning their participation in the Lebanese connection», but the Minister of Interior of the country has demonstrated that the couriers who transferred the money from Turkey to Zürich, via Sophia, did so with the banks bags⁷».

Some of the present problems are so perilous, that institutions themselves, which usually have financial control over the States, have started to realize the absurdity and danger of the situation. «The director of the International Monetary Fund has addressed the indebted governments asking them to resist the «extravagant claims» of the creditor banks when claiming their astronomical debt. Should they carry out these payments, they would have to give up essential imports and to condemn their countries to starvation. [This] escape of information has provided the greatest anxiety to the private sectors of the bank of the rich countries, which now face the consequences of over a decade lending money imprudently to unstable or weak governments⁸».

In order to attempt political changes, currency appears to be a key instrument. President Fujimori promised to change «the currency of Peru as a step to oppose the crisis». The outgoing president, Alan García, accepted that «In my government perhaps many errors have been committed [...] but the emotional burden was too heavy, there was too much hate, because at a given time we tried to control the instruments in the handling of money⁹». Months have passed, the change of currency has not been introduced and the situation does not appear to be improving. When, because of an inflationary situation (as in Argentina) a change of currency takes place (the peso for the austral, or the comparison of the austral with the dollar), the name or the value is changed, but the uninformative and corrupting features are not modified. The results usually are not those which were expected.

The present sort of currency is also a good tool to confuse matters. «The direct cause of the fall of the federal direction of the party (The Greens) was the financial irregularities in the purchase and management of the party's headquarters in Bonn. After having been, for many years, the great accuser of the corruption in the other parliamentary parties for the Flick scandal and others, the «greens» have come to be dispossessed of their aureole of integrity and Spartan simplicity. «Fundamentalists» accused «realists» of taking advantage in a «despicable» way of the errors which had taken place and rejected all the accusations of misappropriation and fiscal irregularities. According to one of the deposed radical leaders, the scandal was «a move prepared a long time before in order to integrate the party in the current system, and to remove its revolutionary and anticapitalistic character¹⁰».

Before the 1929 crack, some social sectors earned a lot of money. When everything burst, only a few won. Almost everybody lost, and the crisis spread all over the world, and with it the war too. It is always like that. An infernal cycle: quick profits separated from the real market, crisis, and a war to overcome the crisis. In 1929 monetary authorities refused to interfere on time. Now, even if they did interfere in the States they would not know how to control international speculation. The lefts and the alternative parties do not say nor do much with respect to this. Perhaps the dream prevails that the crisis will lead to the end of capitalism, which will bring about the birth of a new society...

In face of monetary and economic problems, the ordinary citizen feels overwhelmed. He does not understand much, hides in his nest and hopes that after all it will only be an alarmism. He cannot accept the fact that he is in a steerless vessel. This frightens him. He exculpates himself by saying «economists and politicians should solve this, thats what they study for and thats why they collect our taxes!»

But citizens who do not want to be irresponsible must perforce try to understand some more about the power of currency, if they are to know in which vessel they are sailing and how they can co-operate to avoid shipwrecking.

A «not very clear» origin.

We must admit that the origin of currency is not clear. And perhaps it is not because no agreement has yet been reached as to what is currency. What we know is that in different cultures and times a wide range of tools and objects is found, of which there are indications that they have had «monetary» functions. But these indications from the past are under the risk of being interpreted by historians according to conceptions and realities of the present. Currency is one of the items in this dangerous position, at least if we consider the poor results obtained while trying to find its origins.

Generally speaking, as we shall see, we may say that currency is an old invention which appears under different shapes («token-goods», clay, tools, metals, paper, cards,...), may show different features (personalization, anonymity, intrinsic value, abstract equivalence,...) and can fulfil several functions (account unit, exchange means, value deposit,...). This ancient and peculiar invention has improved the exchange of all sorts of «goods and services» between and within the cultures which have developed a greater or lesser degree of productive specialization.

Communal cultures, inside which the reciprocity of presents prevails, have also accepted in many cases one form of currency or other in their relations with other communities or with the societies in which they are immersed.

Popular literature on this subject, on which citizens and economists have built up their idea of currency, is full of affirmations like this:

«The most primitive evidence of the use of money is to be found in the exchange of metal bars made at the Babylonian temples around 3000 b.C. The most ancient known currency belongs to the 7th century b.C.» «The primitive forms of money varied all over the world. Usually they were items which could be used clearly and easily, not too large and on which everybody agreed they were desirable. Cocoa beans, feathers, olive oil and skins had been used as currency. Shells were one of the most usual forms of primitive currency. Shell necklaces were used mainly in the Pacific islands. Different metal rings were some of the most important common currencies in prehistoric times: they were used in wide areas of Europe and of the Middle East. In Tibet and China tea tablets were among the first forms of currency¹¹».

«They understood that instead of exchanging objects it was better to use valuable pieces, that were small and handy, to exchange them for goods. Everything would be exchanged for one, two, three or more gold straws, according to their value¹²». «Homer heroes stated in oxen the value of their weapons. Also the Egyptians, Germans and old Romans calculated with oxen¹³».

All the above information, given out without any chronology nor connection, is a conglomeration of data which reinforces the idea that currency was created with an intrinsic value, as a third commodity, to improve the exchange of goods, and that all these «primitive» forms are only useful to help the birth of the monetary perfection: the coined metal pieces. To these, books dedicate half their pages, and the others are used to explain the modern evolution of currency (from paper to electronics), an evolution which, paradoxically, contradicts most of the theoretical advantages of metal currencies.

Mercy, market, money.

It is not our task in this essay to develop a complete historic study on these matters, but we will try to demythicize an imposed view of currency, generally accepted but mostly irreal. We shall try to briefly set out a hypothetical approach to the various expressions of the monetary fact. All history is a hypothesis.

In the diversity of human cultures which have thrived and still thrive on our planet, many have felt the need to exchange objects, usually held in excess, for others, of which they normally have a shortage, either outside their community (with other communities or societies) or inside their own culture (among groups or individuals).

For many centuries and in many places, this need has worked out in a sort of market which is based on the reciprocal gift, a gift whose measure of value is the subjective satisfaction of those carrying out the exchange. It is a market for the exchange of gifts, gracious (mercy), qualitative, ritual. At present, in spite of the destruction they are suffering, there are still cultures which consider this sort of market as the most dignifiedly human. The reciprocity market produces human values (prestige, fame, personal responsibility...) and social values (to maintain peace, to acknowledge the relationship bonds, to strengthen collective alliances...) which are considered as important as the value of the exchanged «material» object, or even more.

In the reciprocity market, thanks to the stimulus of these human and social values, it is also usual to cause some sort of productive rivalry and, therefore, overproduction and abundancy. An abundancy that is relative, of course, and in proportion to their desires, which are not usually too sophisticated nor numerous. The maintenance of these forms of the reciprocity market is not only a problem of protection of the «values» of «primitive» communities, but it has also much to do with the problem of «famine», which attains 2/3 of the present day human population: In the West we have considered these forms of reciprocity and production market for consumption old-fashioned and to be the cause of the problems of lack of development suffered by these cultures (as seen from our standpoint, which considers the Western model as the summit of human evolution!).

Both the capitalistic and socialist strategies of the Western states, companies and non-governmental oraganizations for help to development, have been calamitous: many attempts have been made to «substitute the indigenous reciprocity process by a 'profitable' production process (profitable in terms of change)», that is «to develop... private or collective forms of production to direct the indigenous production towards exchange and the creation of exchange currency»; «this I suggest should be called an economicide¹⁴».

But other cultures, especially those in which the market has become so complex and far-reaching that the trust and the ethnic bonds needed by reciprocity have been lost, have felt the need to carry out exchange more satisfactorily than the subjective-qualitative market¹⁵».

These cultures use what we might call monetary units, completely abstract realities, which allow to make a «rule of three», an equivalence of value between two objects to be exchanged. In the same way we measure definite distances by using conventional and abstract length units (for example, the metre), to measure the exchange value of actual goods we use monetary units: these are conventional measuring units, abstract and homogenizing. They are an abstract accounting the common denominator, and allow to compare all the heterogeneous goods existing in a given market. Thanks to the fact that to every heterogeneous good is ascribed a number of abstract, homogenizing units, it becomes very easy to calculate numerical equivalences among different goods.

The immediate consequence of the introduction of monetary units in a market is the verification of trade values. These trade values are the result of the homogenizing comparison between concrete goods and abstract monetary units. This means that they are mixed values (concrete-abstract).

Prices (for example: 1 kg potatoes is equal to 60 monetary units) and salaries (for example: 1 labour day is equal to 4,000 monetary units) are the direct trade values.

On the other hand, what we call currency is the buying power of a monetary unit to buy some given commodities (for example: with a monetary unit I can buy 1/60th kg potatoes or 1/4,000th labour day). We can say that currency is an inverse trade value.

The possibility that in many cultures an abstract monetary unit may have been used, has not even been considered as a key to the interpretation of many objects which were considered «currency». They were not easily adaptable to the commodity-currency (such as gold), considered as the only «true» currency.

It is possible that many of these «monetary» items may be either signs of wealth and prestige, or standards for value measurement. In the first instance they are offered or exchanged at given moments or for given events with the social function of creation and maintenance of bonds of friendship and relation. While being standards for value measurement, these objects are almost never exchanged but are used as an abstract reference, or a tool for counting and calculating, which is used to establish equivalences among commodities.

This hypothesis would allow us to set the use of «oxen» (in Greece, Egypt, Germany and the archaic Rome) as an abstract monetary unit, as a reference unit which allows to establish «rules of three» between two items being exchanged. This hypothesis appears to be much more consistent than that of the use of «oxen» as currency-commodity which must be divided, exchanged and transported for each exchange! If this were so, we would discover a great misunderstanding which has been complicating things up until now.

Most of the time, available documents are not sufficient to reliably confirm this interpretation. This difficulty mainly, comes from the fact that the studies carried out are usually guided by the «currency-commodity» view and not by the «abstract monetary unit» hypothesis. In spite of these difficulties, we have chosen a couple of examples which appear to be going in the indicated direction.

The inhabitants of the Admiralty Islands (Malaysia) can estimate all their belongings in shells and dog's teeth. In their current exchanges, however, the shells and dog's teeth are almost never used, but their use is compulsory in ritual exchanges.

Among the Lele of Kasai (Congo), the raffia fabric is the wedding assets that every man who wants to marry must possess. But, at the same time, the commodities which do not belong to the ritual exchanges can be assessed in units of raffia fabric. Therefore, the raffia fabric isn't an actual commodity in theses exchanges, but a value standard.

The most significant case is told by a 19th century French explorer, L.G. Binger, who explains a business operation being carried out between two traders from north Ghana (where, as in many other parts of Africa, cauris -shells- were used as currency): «The salt calabash is worth 2,000 cauris, 100 kola are worth 1,000 cauris. I shall therefore give you 200 kola for one salt calabash¹⁶».

Up to now we have seen two different ways of solving the exchange problems: the reciprocity market (without currency) and the exchange market (with an abstract monetary unit to count equivalences). Because of the growing complexity and the fluctuation of trade values, prices, salaries and therefore, currency of some cultures today, they have considered it necessary to find new forms of exchange. These cultures found instruments that allow transactions to be quicker, more comfortable, more agile, exact, sure.., than those offered by the exchange market (only with an abstract monetary unit).

These cultures invented the monetary instruments. With these, the direct exchange of goods can be substituted by a system of change delayed in space and time. Using the monetary instruments it becomes possible to obtain the desired commodity without giving any other commodity in exchange.

The monetary instruments are, therefore, a «debt acknowledgement» which, in the end, can be stated in two very different ways:

We shall define and distinguish these two types of monetary instruments in most of the following chapters. As we shall see, it is possible that the monetary instrument based on a sort of «personalized current accounts» came before that based on the «metal currency». But it is also very probable that, in a constantly expanding market, sooner o later the system of notations in current accounts became a nuisance, slow and insufficient and therefore, there appeared the monetary instruments which we historically know in the West as the metal currency (or any other form of commodity-currency with intrinsic value).

For the time being, it is only necessary to remember that, generally speaking, there are different sorts of markets with respect to the use or non-use of one type of «currency».

The exchange market, based on the use of monetary instruments, is the one which has prevailed in most civilizations, i.e. where the city culture, with or without a State, has substituted the other cultural organizations, mainly communal ones. Monetary instruments have invaded most of contemporary human relations, even in communal cultures (with more or less incidence), so that the most accurate study of the functions of the different types of currency (with their dangers and possibilities) becomes a key item for the understanding of and the attempt to solving an important part of human conflicts.

Following the purest tradition, we may say that currency has mainly three functions:

The first two functions, as we shall see, are quite independent from the type of monetary instrument used. This means, they might be carried out with gold coins or with a system of cheques and notations in current accounts. Their social and economic results are different in each case.

The third function actually does depend on the type of monetary instrument because, as long as this accomplishes the reserve function in the wrong way, people will be compelled to get rid of it and go back to bartering -typical of high inflation moments. If the instrument carries out its reserve function well, then people will try to treasure it as a source of wealth. Its circulation will be reduced, and it will be difficult for the currency to carry out its function as intermediary change.

It will be necessary to add a fourth function to those three functions of the monetary instruments which has, up until now, been ignored, but which is fundamental in order to take advantage of the possibilities of the electronic money:

Notes:

¹«Alain Minc propone un cambio radical en el sistema capitalista», El Periodico, 11.11.1990.
²«El Correu de la Unesco», February 1990.
³«Economia real y economia especulativa», Actualidad Económica, 25.12.1989.
⁴«Una rápida globalización económica», El Periódico, 14.1.1990.
⁵«El nuevo camino de la economía mundial», Actualidad Económica, 25.5.1974.
⁶«La banca suiza teme que el escándalo del blanqueo de dinero del narcotráfico afecte a su prestigio», La Vanguardia, 8.11.1988.
⁷«Los socialistas exigen que se confisque el dinero sucio!, Cinco Días, 21.11.1988.
⁸«La deuda del Tercer Mundo devora los beneficios de los bancos privados», La Vanguardia, 1.3.1990.
⁹«Fujimori ofrece un gobierno de unidad nacional», El País, 11.6.1990.
¹⁰«Los 'verdes' de la RFA ante el cisma», El País, 6.12.1988.
¹¹Redden, Richard (1976), «Els Diners», Plaza & Janés, Barcelona, 1978, pp. 3-4
¹²Ibáñez, Francisco, «La història dels diners», La Caixa, Barcelona, 1989, p.6.
¹³Roland Nitsche, (1970), «El dinero», Editorial Noguer, S.A., Barcelona, 1971, p. 11.
¹⁴Dominique Temple, «Alternative au Développement», Centre Interculturel Monchanin, Montreal, 1989, p.97.
¹⁵Magdalena Grau, «Moneda telemàtica i estratègia de mercat», Centre d'Estudis Joan Bardina, Barcelona, 1985, chapter 2. In this work are submitted the bases of criticism to present currency and the foundations of a rational currency. It is the first essay submitting Agustí Chalaux's contributions on these matter.
¹⁶«El Correu de la Unesco», February 1990.