The Value of Money

As paper money was only introduced to Europeans by Marco Polo in the thirteenth century, when we talk about money in the ancient world we are obviously talking about coins, or at the very least, metal. And before we look at what the Greek philosophers thought about coinage, let’s take a look at the precious little discs themselves. The ancient Greek drachma enjoyed ten centuries of popular usage from the Archaic period right up until Roman times. As such, it was not only one of the earliest unified and accepted world currencies, but one of the world's longest serving monetary units. N.B. The modern Greek drachma (1832 – 2001) can only be thought of as the 'same' currency by the most romantic of Hellenophiles. Greek coinage seems to have originated around 600BC and was originally made of electrum, a naturally occurring gold/silver alloy; though over time silver became the metal of choice. A drachma was worth six obols which, though later coins in their own right, were originally large metal sticks. A man could carry six of these valuable stakes in one hand, thus giving etymological rise to the drachma (literally, a fistful). And the rising commercial and political power of the Greek states meant that the coins were in use all over the Mediterranean basin – from Persia to Carthage to Italy and even reaching the western-dwelling Celts. Funnily enough, and despite their ubiquity, drachmae were not universally assumed to have the same value; this depended on the reputation of the city in which they were minted. And though these handy coins were undoubtedly an essential part of everyday life, they were even needed in the hereafter. It was standard practice to place a coin in the mouth of the deceased, thus enabling them to pay the ferryman, Charon, to convey them into Hades. However, you may be of the opinion that all of this is just nickel-and-dime stuff. Much more important is: what did the great minds of the age have to say about coinage? Well, the great student/master double-act, Aristotle and Plato, had clear and distinct thoughts about what a currency should be. Plato's ideas about money were like many of his on other topics i.e. largely theoretical and rhetorical and composed more to generate intelligent discussion rather than to provide a binding dogma for the state to follow. Well… partly that, and also deeply rooted in what critics would describe as socialist principles and what supporters would describe as.... well, socialist principles. Plato spurned the idea of common money having any value, he was therefore against using gold or silver coinage, but instead some sort of officially recognised, accepted, but intrinsically worthless 'tokens' – much like the tickets you win at the fairground – but exchangeable for more than merely huge, stuffed Garfields. That said, he did think that a standardized Greek currency of actual value could be useful for transactions between governments or travelling citizens, but not compatriots within the same city. Aristotle often took a capriciously contrary view to his mentor, but in this instance is thought to have won the day with his ideas about money. He didn't do much to justify the necessity of it, but took the more practical approach (i.e. he considered its necessity to be self-evident): “When the inhabitants of one country became more dependent on those of another, and they imported what they needed, and exported what they had too much of, money necessarily came into use.” Sometimes even slightly condescendingly: “The various necessaries of life are not easily carried about!” Though was clear in his distinction between money and wealth: “How can that be wealth of which a man may have a great abundance and yet perish with hunger, like Midas in the fable, whose insatiable prayer turned everything that was set before him into gold?” He also considered the key problem therein to be that, whilst a man could have evidently adequate wealth, there seemed to be no limit in the amount of coinage citizens wished to accrue: “There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another”. Though he reserved his true contempt for the money-lenders: “The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself”. In addition to this, and unlike Plato, Aristotle was dogmatic about what a currency should be. He considered that coinage must be: Durable – it must survive the trials and tribulations of daily life i.e. of being carried around in people's pockets, purses, or in the case of obols, in people's mouths (this was in everyday life, not only for funerals)! Portable – a small item should be of a high value. Divisible – breaking a coin, either figuratively or literally, should not affect its relative value. Fungible – mutually exchangeable i.e. it doesn't matter which particular coin you have as long as you have one. Intrinsically Valuable – the coin's material should be a worthwhile commodity. Whilst largely in concord, it was in the practicalities of this last criterion that Xenophon, a student of Socrates, disagreed with Aristotle. He considered that the value of silver should be fixed regardless of how much could be procured, and whilst Aristotle conceded that it needed to be controlled and not allowed to spiral freely, he maintained it still must be treated as a commodity rather than simply a currency. Subscribe now Aristotle's ideas have been used throughout the ages in order to justify or denigrate various economic policies and innovations; notably in regard to the fluctuating fortunes of crypto-currencies like Bitcoin; the 'intrinsic values' of which have caused many financiers to spray their morning coffee all over the Wall Street Journal. Indeed, ignoring this fifth tenet of Aristotle's is what helped bring about the hyper-inflation in the latter days of the Roman Empire – which some contend was the primary source of its fall (but more on that later). Though poetical sound-bites like this one from Aristotle's dramatic predecessor, Sophocles, pleasantly roll off the tongue to make neat, glib maxims: “Money: There's nothing in the world so demoralizing as money”. And are well backed up by the homespun idealism of Socrates: “I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well as private”. Aristotle was far more practical and prescient. Not only did he understand what a currency should be, but what a society could become given its absence. From the lofty ideals embedded in his lengthy prose, Aristotle allows us to infer that he would have rejected any 'the root of all evil' tub-thumping out of hand. Indeed he would have considered the exact opposite to be true; that money could help elevate man out of the mire and that the true evil was not the coin itself, but rather its absence. He most succinctly and sagely put it thus: “Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime”. And it is with such pragmatic principles that his ideas have outlasted even the drachma itself… …However, now it’s time to take a deep breath and steady yourself; I will do the same. Today we are not merely analysts, dear readers. We are philosophers, following a grand old tradition that has shaped great minds and infuriated college freshmen in equal number. Actively philosophizing is much more difficult than strictly summarizing and rehashing the ideas of a handful of dead Greeks, although we will undoubtedly do a bit of that as well. Why do we value things? Why is it that we value gold rather than say, cement? Have you ever thought about that? No? Well, we are philosophers now, so start thinking like that. The easy answer is that gold is unique, rare in fact. It has properties that are rare among metals. Gold does not tarnish, nor does it rust. Cement on the other hand is a rather common substance, and other than its ability to be easily shaped when wet and then dry into a rigid structure, cement has no astounding properties. And while this certainly is one thing to consider, our friend Aristotle also gives us a very detailed explanation of what we might consider "sound money." Within the pages of his Politics we learn that monies should operate as a standard for trade and should serve that purpose exclusively. Additionally our currency ought to be durable, portable, divisible, and should have intrinsic value. By this standard, gold certainly would seem to satisfy our needs for currency. Or you could craft a solid gold toilet instead. You know, whatever. Now, gold as a currency is certainly of value within the context of living in the polis, as Aristotle would put it. However its value is only sustained as long as the polis still stands. If the world were to, as my father put it, "go to hell in a hand basket" then gold, or any currency, would quickly be forgotten. When the zombie apocalypse finally wipes us out, I would gladly exchange whatever gold I might have for a shotgun and 100 high-caliber shells. What fun is philosophy if you can’t talk about zombies once in a while? Share Additionally, perhaps strangely, the value of something like gold is not static. It is constantly changing, ebbing and flowing like the tides. Now, I'm not saying that we ought to dump all of our gold out of fear of depreciating value, but hey, it might not hurt to look into the cement market. Now, we have discussed at length the value of a currency such as gold. It has what we may consider a utility value; it allows us to acquire other things that we may want. However we have also seen that said value can rise, fall or disappear entirely with the collapse of civilized society. The questions that we high and mighty, all-too-wise philosophers are considering involves the notion of an object of eternal, universal value. Are there things that can be conceived of whose value is not dependent upon the perspective of an ever changing society? Within Politics, Aristotle seems to doubt that gold, or any monies, could ever be given as an answer to this question: “Others maintain that coined money is a mere sham, a thing not natural, but conventional only, because, if the users substitute another commodity for it, it is worthless, and because it is not useful as a means to any of the necessities of life, and, indeed, he who is rich in coin may often be in want of necessary food.” With this in mind, Aristotle tells us that there are two types of things that we may value. The first type of thing is valuable because it allows us access to other things that we may want or need. Wealth, specifically gold, is a wonderful example of this. It has value insofar as it allows us to acquire other things. Then there is another type of thing. The second type of thing that Aristotle describes is valuable or choice-worthy by its very nature. Unlike precious metal, this type of thing does not possess the capacity to provide us with something else. Rather, this is the something else. It is the final end towards which all of our struggles and sufferings are aimed. And if there is such a thing that is universally, eternally of value, it would most likely be this second type of thing. When the philosopher tells us of the four causes in his essay The Metaphysics, he lists four principles of a thing that, when combined, form the perfectly constructed essence of a thing. Of the four causes, perhaps the most important is "the final cause." According to Aristotle, the final cause is the thing for which something is created. It is its fulfilled purpose, the culmination of its principle being. For an acorn, the final cause may be to become a tree. The final cause of an alarm clock may be its ability to wake me up in time to catch my train. When considering our discussion of value, Aristotle's final cause is of great importance to us. It can be said that a final cause is of immeasurable value; for without it, the object will never be fully realized, completed or fulfilled. I will spare you the suspense. Aristotle would seem to suggest, and this is described at length in Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics (see below), that our final end, our goal is to find the purest form of happiness. Specifically Aristotle tells us to find happiness through exercising our human wisdom and by engaging ourselves in a life of study and knowledge. It would seem that the final cause of a human being, his or her most valuable asset, is a happy life. So consider this, my dear philosophizing friends. Can we say that there is a difference between the value of one's happiness and the market value of gold? Or of the value of Bitcoins? Or of any one thing that can be said to have utility value? The argument to be declared would say that while gold may lose value or depreciate, happiness will always be of value to us. Unlock the Wisdom! Classical Wisdom is a reader-supported publication and depends on readers like yourself. If you enjoyed this article, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Artículo*: Classical Wisdom Más info en frasco@menadelpsicologia.com / Tfno. & WA 607725547 Centro MENADEL (Frasco Martín) Psicología Clínica y Tradicional en Mijas Pueblo #Psicologia #MenadelPsicologia #Clinica #Tradicional #MijasPueblo *No suscribimos necesariamente las opiniones o artículos aquí compartidos. No todo es lo que parece.
By Van Bryan

- Enlace a artículo -

Más info en frasco@menadelpsicologia.com / Tfno. & WA 607725547 Centro MENADEL (Frasco Martín) Psicología Clínica y Tradicional en Mijas Pueblo #Psicologia #MenadelPsicologia #Clinica #Tradicional #MijasPueblo

*No suscribimos necesariamente las opiniones o artículos aquí compartidos. No todo es lo que parece.