Philosophical Economics
Money is a symbol- a direct symbol for wealth of any variety at all- food, land, time, machines, services etc.– and isn’t a ‘real’ thing in and of itself. Created because it helped facilitate trade between ‘wealth-creators’ of different varieties, it allowed a shoemaker to get bread from baker who already has shoes. Its a fairly simple concept, really, and one which truly did facilitate efficiency- as long as money was viewed and understood as the symbol that it was. A problem occurs when you separate the symbolic from the actual- the symbolic becomes capable acting in an opposite fashion to it’s actual.
Now enters the conception of ‘compounding interest’ - the backbone of capitalism of all stripes. The idea is that money accumulates more money around it, and the more money there is, the more money it can accumulate faster. this is a concept which works quite well, and makes sense, in mathematical principle.
in nature, however, a different rule prevails– the laws of entropy. every system is slowly decaying, and requires ‘work’ of some variety to keep it where it is. this is inherently opposite to the laws of compounding interest, and yet the symbol of money is meant to represent physical wealth.
how did the process of symbolism allow for a complete reversal of the natural order? i’m not sure what the historical imperative for this development was, but i find it extremely curious, and wonder if anyone has any insight for me …
Reed Mollins
reedmollins@gmail.com