The Magician’s Assistant

Magician's Assistant 06

Image by thivierr via Flickr

In an economy, money is like the magician’s assistant. It’s easy on the eyes, and gets the attention while the real action is happening elsewhere. See, when a magician is performing his trick, the real result is the same whether the assistant is present or not. But nothing happens if the assistant is present without the magician. Similarly, an economy is capable of functioning whether money exists or not. But money in the absence of a functioning economy is literally worthless.

To understand the illusion, let’s take a very high-speed look at about ten millennia of economic history.

As agrarian society developed, people traded goods and services with each other directly. Perhaps I’d give you some of my grain to feed your cattle, and you’d give me some milk and beef in exchange. In small villages, this model worked pretty well. But as people began to trade outside their villages, particularly over long distances, markets developed. People would bring their goods and services to a single location, where they would trade them with each other. This would often lead to complex, multi-step transactions. For example, I have wool and want barley, but the barley vendor wants olive oil, so I go to the olive oil vendor and give him wool, and then take the oil to the barley vendor. Some goods were of value to broad swaths of society, and they had long shelf lives, so they tended to be the most-traded, and were the most-used as intermediate goods. Barley and olive oil were the most common of these, though for higher-value transactions precious metals (mostly silver) were used.

Carrying the lower-value intermediate goods around the market was a hassle, so vendors started issuing tokens. I could go to the olive oil vendor and, instead of getting a bottle of oil, I’d get a clay token redeemable for a bottle of oil. I could then take the token to the barley vendor, who would collect as many of those tokens as he needed over the course of the day and redeem them all at the close of the market.

With precious metals, the hassle was more around the ease of division and measurement. It was much easier if you knew precisely how much of the metal you were trading, and had appropriate denominations for the transactions, so reputable smiths would stamp specific quantities with markings noting the purity and quantity of the metal.

Over time, governments stepped in to manage the metal stamping, which was preferable to the markets because it didn’t depend on the reputations of particular smiths. Once this occurred, the need for the tokens diminished, and commerce clustered around precious metals as the universal exchange for goods and services. Since these metals were universally accepted, people wanted safe places to keep them, and banks arose to fill this need. Someone going to market would stop by the bank beforehand, withdraw metal, trade at the market, and then deposit the metal back in the bank afterward.

As standards of living rose, inflation rose along with it. Transactions required ever increasing quantities of precious metals, and carrying that much around was a hassle. Banks began to issue their own tokens, typically in the form of paper, which is much easier to carry around. Whoever presented the bank with its issued paper would receive metal in the quantity specified. This was the first paper money. Some of the more clever banks also issued special forms that could be used for arbitrary denominations, as written and sealed by the account holder. The redeemer could then receive that amount of money directly from the writer’s account, when presented at the bank. This was the beginning of checks.

I’ll stop there, but the story does evolve further, of course.

The point in all of this is that the evolutions at every step of the way were reductions of friction in the market. Reducing economic friction makes everything run more smoothly and quickly, and therefore improves the market, increasing economic activity. But the market exists both in the presence and absence of money. In fact, we leave money out of the picture entirely on a regular basis, such as when we get friends to help us move in exchange for beer and pizza. That’s an economic transaction, but no money changes hands among the friends. There was a pretty significant barter economy during the Great Depression, because money was in short supply, but the forces driving economic activity were still there.

In essence, money is to the economy what batteries (or, more accurately, capacitors) are to electronics. It’s a way of accumulating and storing economic potential. But, in the money space, real work happens when the money moves. And, since money is given to someone in exchange for goods and/or services, money moves in the opposite direction to real economic activity. So when people talk about following the money, they’re really talking about swimming up the economic stream.

So why all of the focus on money, instead of other economic activity? Because it’s easy. It’s a single, common language with which to examine the economy. And since more economic activity involves money than any other commodity, it becomes a good tool to use to view economic trends. But we spend so much time focusing on the magician’s assistant that we forget where the real action is.

This often leads people to wish for tax policy that isn’t necessarily in line with what’s best for the economy, or themselves. That will be a topic of a future article.

For now, I’ll leave you with a reminder to pay attention to the magician, because that’s where the real action is.

About Michael Weiss

Michael is now located at http://www.logarchism.com, along with Monotreme, filistro, and dcpetterson. Please make note of the new location.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Magician’s Assistant

  1. shiloh says:

    See, when a magician is performing his trick, the real result is the same whether the assistant is present or not.

    but, but, but if the assistant is a good looking babe, everyone will be watching the assistant which makes it easier for the magician to perform their magic.

    Just sayin’

    Again reminded of a James Stewart line from ShenandoahHe’s the only man I know that started at the bottom and went down in the world. He used to steal horses for free, now the government pays him to do it!

    carry on

  2. Mainer says:

    but, but, but if the assistant is a good looking babe, everyone will be watching the assistant which makes it easier for the magician to perform their magic.

    Shiloh isn’t that kind of what John McCain tried to do? But, but but the act flopped, the magician became a different person and now we can’t get the danged assistant off the stage. I am a firm believer that politics should be run like the old Gong show. Where is Major Bowes when you really need him?

  3. filistro says:

    Michael… has there ever been a relatively complex society that functioned without developing some medium of exchange? (I think the term “salary” goes all the way back to when workmen were paid in salt… a very valuable commodity at one time.)

    I’ve often tried to imagine what a moneyless society would be like. Might be an interesting topic for a book….

  4. Not without some medium of exchange, but it hasn’t always been a single medium of exchange. They common feature has always been something of general value to the population as a whole, so as to maximize the potential barter network. Barley, olive oil, salt, wool, and tea have all been used in various societies.

    The notion of free-floating currency is especially recent in human history, which is one reason for Weimar hyperinflation. They hadn’t yet fully realized how it worked.

  5. filistro says:

    For those of you who are conservatives.. and believers… do you think there will be money in heaven? If not, how will things work? Will everybody just do things for others out of the goodness of their hearts, and expect nothing in return?

    That makes heaven sound kind of… socialist.

    Are you guys sure you’ll be comfortable there? ;-)

  6. Gator says:

    After discontinuing the gold standard, money is a belief system. A trade system built on maintaining widespread faith in the validity and strength of an at best amorphous idea, that being the continued existence and stability of the local authorities or government. When that belief system fails we trade potatoes for soap. Hard assets with proven utilitarian value (or really pretty baubles) will always have some intrinsic value. Cash money… not so much.

  7. Gator says:

    @Fili

    That presupposes a belief in there being a heaven. Aren’t you being a little presumptuous?

  8. Mainer says:

    Fili it is believed that my dear state has a significant underground economy and that while much of it involves some level of cash there is still a significant amount that is based on the barter system. Hey maybe the Nevada chicken lady would have been better off running in Maine. The larger the society the harder it would be to do. I also think that it works better in simpler places….and we are pretty simple. I’m afraid it is a concept whose time has come and gone.

  9. filistro says:

    @Gator That presupposes a belief in there being a heaven.

    Oh, I definitely believe in an immense reality beyond this fleeting existence. But I have some pretty radical ideas about it. (None of them include money :-)

  10. shiloh says:

    Shiloh isn’t that kind of what John McCain tried to do?

    True a distraction lol.

    ok, it was more of a response to Obama not pickin’ Hillary ie desperation er Hail Mary. HP had a headline today saying palin’s new reality show was the highest rated TLC show ever. Oh the humanity! :D btw, palin recently complained about invasion of privacy re: her reality show lol

    Kate Gosselin is jealous!

    Again, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public!

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain …

  11. Monotreme says:

    fili’s question is brother to Mark Twain’s question in (I believe) Letters from Earth, where he questioned whether or not sex existed in heaven.

    Of course then, we’d have to ask whether “money for sex” exists in heaven.

  12. fopplssiegeparty says:

    Isn’t it true that every single fiat currency system ultimately fails catastrophically?

  13. @fopplssiegeparty,

    I suppose that depends on how you measure things. Fiat currency is more closely tied to the success of the government issuing the fiat than is money that has no numismatic value beyond the value of the raw material contained within. So, naturally, if the issuing government collapses (either in a ruling sense or in a fiscal sense), the fiat currency becomes inherently worthless and collapses catastrophically. So if we assume that the future of human society will mimic the past, we can safely assume that no government will exist in perpetuity, and thus all fiat currencies will ultimately fail catastrophically.

    That said, the catastrophic failure of the underlying governments tends to cause sufficient social damage that the loss of fiat currency is of secondary importance to most members of that society.

  14. fopplssiegeparty says:

    Thank you for your reply!

  15. shrinkers says:

    @Monotreme
    fili’s question is brother to Mark Twain’s question in (I believe) Letters from Earth, where he questioned whether or not sex existed in heaven.

    I believe that, in heaven, sex would be used in place of money.

  16. Pingback: Fair Laissez-Faire | 538 Refugees

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s