G-khan
07-04-2003, 11:13 AM
What Form? What Function?
By Paul Hein (pahein@email.com)
Aug 15 2002.The architect Louis Sullivan coined the phrase "form follows function" over a century ago. His idea was that an object’s appearance should flow naturally from its purpose. Aircraft are a good example: everything is designed for a purpose, not for a stylistic concept. The final result, however, is almost invariably a sleek, beautiful machine. Automobiles, on the other hand, have often been designed to be visually appealing, with the function taking second place. I recall a sedan of my father’s, many years ago, with rear windows that did not lower. Apparently the form, in that case, triumphed over the function, even though building stationary windows was, I learned, more expensive than the conventional kind that rolled down. Today we are treated to devices called "spoilers," being all form and no function.
Monetary Realists, contending that the nature of money is of prime importance, and must be understood, would conclude that "form follows function" might well be applied to the medium of exchange.
What, then, are the functions of money? To pick a couple: a medium of exchange, and a store of value. As a medium of exchange, money is a universal bartering agent. It enables someone to give something for something. Only a fool would knowingly exchange something he had earned or made by the sweat of his brow for no thing. We don’t find many people today, for example, willing to swap something of theirs for an impressive deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, no matter how beautifully engraved with promises of ownership. A problem arises, however, if the "something" offered is not appealing to the trader. Precious metals, since antiquity, have been universally acceptable, however, because they are, were, and always will be, useful. You can be virtually certain you won’t be "stuck" with gold or silver.
Moreover, they hold their value; i.e., an ounce of pure gold is an ounce of pure gold, no matter what is stamped on it. No legislative fiat can change that. The gold coins salvaged from sunken Spanish galleons along the coast of Florida are as valuable today as they were five hundred years ago.
If money functions as a store of value and medium of exchange, what should its form be? Well, it would be eminently sensible for the money to be in standardized amounts, and in convenient shape. Square coins would be awkward, uncomfortable to hold, and damaging to pockets. Round, therefore, is the sensible shape. Not globular; such coins would roll away. No, round and flat has been the popular choice through the millennia. And to facilitate trade, and establish the value, the purity and weight of the metal should be stamped on the coins. That is almost never the case. When money was in use in this country, the coins were given fanciful labels, such as eagle, half eagle, double eagle, etc. People were accustomed to these terms, not to the actual amount of money which they signified. Of course, the various "eagles" were defined in terms of dollars, but eventually that term came to have no meaning, or whatever meaning it suited the government to apply. Thus, a "dollar" could be a silver coin, a gold coin, or a piece of paper. Today the word is utterly without legal significance; it is not defined.
What about the form and function of modern "money?" Well, the form is elaborate and impressive, rather like spoilers, or tail fins. Exquisite engraving, various holograms, electronic devices, etc., are incorporated, or will be incorporated, into the bills. The form, in fact, is everything! And the function? That’s easy: the transference of wealth from its producers to the producers of the money. This is done by the bankers, who create money from nothing, when loaning it. By this means they obtain a claim upon the real wealth of the borrower. More importantly, they earn interest on this newly-created money, and with this, they obtain goods and services for, in effect, doing nothing but some bookkeeping. And they pay the bookkeeper with the "money" they create.
The bankers’ co-conspirator, the government, plays a similar role. If you raised your own vegetables, no one could deny they were yours. If you traded some of your vegetables for a watch, again, no one could deny it was yours. But if you trade your labor for ",money," why, that belongs to the government, which, after taking the share it decides is proper, will allow you to keep the rest, although if you invest it, the profits will, again, belong to the government, which will allow you to keep what remains after it helps itself.
The function of modern money, then, is theft, by its issuers and the organization which sanctions it, the government. The form is of elaborately engraved devices, intended to impress the victims with the appearance of legality and genuineness. They are even termed "notes," although they obviously are not.
Is there another aphorism that states "the grander the form the meaner the function?" Maybe there should be. Consider how, over the years, the trappings of the Presidency have come to resemble those of a royal court, with courtiers, flunkies, and hangers-on in abundance; while the actual operation of the presidency has come to resemble that of a two-bit wheeler-dealer politician. Say, do you suppose there could be a connection between the substitution of form for function in the money, and the same phenomenon in government? In any event, freedom and fiat are incompatible.
Paul Hein (pahein@email.com)
Aug 15 2002
REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION
By Paul Hein (pahein@email.com)
Aug 15 2002.The architect Louis Sullivan coined the phrase "form follows function" over a century ago. His idea was that an object’s appearance should flow naturally from its purpose. Aircraft are a good example: everything is designed for a purpose, not for a stylistic concept. The final result, however, is almost invariably a sleek, beautiful machine. Automobiles, on the other hand, have often been designed to be visually appealing, with the function taking second place. I recall a sedan of my father’s, many years ago, with rear windows that did not lower. Apparently the form, in that case, triumphed over the function, even though building stationary windows was, I learned, more expensive than the conventional kind that rolled down. Today we are treated to devices called "spoilers," being all form and no function.
Monetary Realists, contending that the nature of money is of prime importance, and must be understood, would conclude that "form follows function" might well be applied to the medium of exchange.
What, then, are the functions of money? To pick a couple: a medium of exchange, and a store of value. As a medium of exchange, money is a universal bartering agent. It enables someone to give something for something. Only a fool would knowingly exchange something he had earned or made by the sweat of his brow for no thing. We don’t find many people today, for example, willing to swap something of theirs for an impressive deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, no matter how beautifully engraved with promises of ownership. A problem arises, however, if the "something" offered is not appealing to the trader. Precious metals, since antiquity, have been universally acceptable, however, because they are, were, and always will be, useful. You can be virtually certain you won’t be "stuck" with gold or silver.
Moreover, they hold their value; i.e., an ounce of pure gold is an ounce of pure gold, no matter what is stamped on it. No legislative fiat can change that. The gold coins salvaged from sunken Spanish galleons along the coast of Florida are as valuable today as they were five hundred years ago.
If money functions as a store of value and medium of exchange, what should its form be? Well, it would be eminently sensible for the money to be in standardized amounts, and in convenient shape. Square coins would be awkward, uncomfortable to hold, and damaging to pockets. Round, therefore, is the sensible shape. Not globular; such coins would roll away. No, round and flat has been the popular choice through the millennia. And to facilitate trade, and establish the value, the purity and weight of the metal should be stamped on the coins. That is almost never the case. When money was in use in this country, the coins were given fanciful labels, such as eagle, half eagle, double eagle, etc. People were accustomed to these terms, not to the actual amount of money which they signified. Of course, the various "eagles" were defined in terms of dollars, but eventually that term came to have no meaning, or whatever meaning it suited the government to apply. Thus, a "dollar" could be a silver coin, a gold coin, or a piece of paper. Today the word is utterly without legal significance; it is not defined.
What about the form and function of modern "money?" Well, the form is elaborate and impressive, rather like spoilers, or tail fins. Exquisite engraving, various holograms, electronic devices, etc., are incorporated, or will be incorporated, into the bills. The form, in fact, is everything! And the function? That’s easy: the transference of wealth from its producers to the producers of the money. This is done by the bankers, who create money from nothing, when loaning it. By this means they obtain a claim upon the real wealth of the borrower. More importantly, they earn interest on this newly-created money, and with this, they obtain goods and services for, in effect, doing nothing but some bookkeeping. And they pay the bookkeeper with the "money" they create.
The bankers’ co-conspirator, the government, plays a similar role. If you raised your own vegetables, no one could deny they were yours. If you traded some of your vegetables for a watch, again, no one could deny it was yours. But if you trade your labor for ",money," why, that belongs to the government, which, after taking the share it decides is proper, will allow you to keep the rest, although if you invest it, the profits will, again, belong to the government, which will allow you to keep what remains after it helps itself.
The function of modern money, then, is theft, by its issuers and the organization which sanctions it, the government. The form is of elaborately engraved devices, intended to impress the victims with the appearance of legality and genuineness. They are even termed "notes," although they obviously are not.
Is there another aphorism that states "the grander the form the meaner the function?" Maybe there should be. Consider how, over the years, the trappings of the Presidency have come to resemble those of a royal court, with courtiers, flunkies, and hangers-on in abundance; while the actual operation of the presidency has come to resemble that of a two-bit wheeler-dealer politician. Say, do you suppose there could be a connection between the substitution of form for function in the money, and the same phenomenon in government? In any event, freedom and fiat are incompatible.
Paul Hein (pahein@email.com)
Aug 15 2002
REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION