Objectivity, Discontinuity, and the Concept of Money

[Boojatta]

Suppose there are two coats that, upon close examination, appear to be identical except for one thing. One coat says on the label that it is made from 100% wool (and the label is accurate) and the other coat says on the label that it is made from 99% wool and 1% cotton (and that label is also accurate).

If the coats have the same price, then would they be close enough to each other that you wouldn't care which you bought?

Now suppose you bring a US twenty dollar bill to some government agency and tell them you suspect it is counterfeit. Suppose their initial response is say that if it is counterfeit then it is one of the best counterfeits they have ever seen. Suppose they try to get you to leave. You insist that they investigate. They do and they conclude that it is a 99% accurate reproduction of a US twenty dollar bill

(Don't bother to ask what 99% means in this context. Assume they have some scale for assigning a numerical value. Presumably they would ask where you got the bill and why you suspected that it was counterfeit. This part is parenthetical as you can see.)

Would you be likely to respond as follows?
"Is 99% close enough? Is it okay for me to spend the bill?"

[treegiver]

1. Details needed

Would you be likely to respond as follows?
"Is 99% close enough? Is it okay for me to spend the bill?"

Maybe. I need more info.

Why did they want me to leave? What did they do to try to get me to leave. Did they get rough? Did I have to intimidate them to get them to investigate. Was there yelling?

I'm not going to ask what 99% means in this context because you told me not to, but why did I suspect that it was counterfeit?

Probably the most important thing is "where is the bill"? Who has it when it's time to respond or not respond?

If they handed it back to me, I might ask, depending on above details.

If they didn't give it back, it wouldn't even be an issue.

But the most interesting thing is: if I asked if it was OK to spend it, what did they say? I hope it didn't make them mad.

I don't need a coat.

[Boojatta]

2. Welcome to DU, treegiver!

:toast:

Regarding your need for more information, could you provide a brief answer for each of a few scenarios that you consider to be most plausible?

[treegiver]

6. Thanks. Here's three scenarios

Probably, there was some sort of struggle and I got put in jail when they tried to get me to leave. Damn it.

If they kept the bill, I wouldn't ask if I could spend it, because what's the point.

But if they gave it back, I'd ask. It would be cool if they said "Sure! 99% genuine is good for money. It's not like wool coats."

So what did they really say?

Out of curiosity, why did you want to know this?

[Boojatta]

8. Reply

So what did they really say?

It's a hypothetical situation. Perhaps there was no "they". Perhaps there were various different "they"s. Perhaps there will be a "they" in the future.

Out of curiosity, why did you want to know this?

In that sentence, what does the word "this" refer to?

[treegiver]

9. Them

Perhaps there was no "they". Perhaps there were various different "they"s. Perhaps there will be a "they" in the future.

This is disturbing. How can we find out? I thought that was the most interesting part. Now I'm worried.

In that sentence, what does the word "this" refer to?

I thought it referred to your question "Would you be likely to respond...". But now I see that it might refer to something else. After finding out about "them", I don't know.

Is there anything we can do?

How did you find out about this (meaning "them")?

[treegiver]

10. Crap. I'm afraid "they" got Boojatta

I hope not, but it certainly doesn't look good.

First I practically end up in jail for counterfeit money. Now this.

Seemingly, "they" will stop at nothing. It's worse than when I was Steve McQueen. (I won't go into that.)

I better shut up.

[Orrex]

3. Perhaps the 1% "counterfeit" bit is the Fed's non-endorsement of the bill?

Rather than thinking of it as "counterfeit" versus "non-counterfeit," perhaps you might consider it in terms of "legal tender" and "not legal tender."

Whichever distinction you choose, you're left with kind of an undetermined "state" of the bill's "realness." Science geeks (even feeble amateurs like myself) will note the resonance here with Schroedinger's Cat; that is, either the bill is legal or it's not, but you have no way to know it unless you submit it for examination, thereby "collapsing the wave function."

If it "collapses" at a ratio of 99:1 as you've described, I might as readily ask how I might spend the 99%. In essence, they've told me that I have a $19.80 bill. If I hand them the bill and two dimes, will they give me a twenty and send me on my way?

The problem is that only one agency is empowered to authorize currency, so if it's counterfeit, it's counterfeit, with no consideration of percentage. Even if you splice 50% of a real $100 bill onto 50% of a phony $100, it's all counterfeit.

The analogy with the coats doesn't quite work, because bills aren't rated with a counterfeit:real ratio the way a wool/cotton garment might be.

In any case, this is a delightfully Philip Dick-esqe conversation. What's your reason for asking, if you have one?

[Boojatta]

5. I admit that the analogy is imperfect.

The analogy with the coats doesn't quite work, because bills aren't rated with a counterfeit:real ratio the way a wool/cotton garment might be.

Perhaps a numerical scale could be based on how frequently experts pick a particular bill out of a line-up of bills (assuming that the experts get to examine the bills closely and get enough choices to choose at least all of the counterfeits in the line-up).

Does 99% wool always mean 99% by mass?

What's your reason for asking, if you have one?

It was a continuation of a train of thought that began here---->
"Ethics is Subjective": Discuss Some Reasoning in Support of that Claim

If physics is the key to understanding economic transactions, then should we be able to use experimental data concerning economic transactions to develop or test theories of physics?

If a counterfeit bill is never recognized as counterfeit, then does that mean that records of economic transactions that involved the bill are inaccurate or is there a principle of equivalence that tells us that in that case the bill is genuine?

[htuttle]

4. Money is what people take in trade for goods or services

Did you ever hear of the artist named 'JSG Boggs' who draws money? He literally takes a small piece of paper, and draws a hundred dollar bill (or other denomination). He's really good, and has become fairly famous.

Often, he's taken this piece of art to a restaurant, offered it to the manager and see if they'll take it in trade for a meal. He told them that he was an artist and had drawn it. He did NOT say it was a 'real' (US authorized) bill.

Even so, many times the restaurateur has taken him up on the offer, sometimes even giving him change based on the face value of the bill. Again, all the while knowing that they were trading for artwork, not for legal tender. It turns out that his artwork actually sells for quite a lot more than the face value of the bills he draws, so everybody's happy with the transaction. (he says he gets a thrill 'spending' his money artwork for it's 'face value').

Here's an article about him and his use of the 'money art' (and how all this relates to the concept of money).
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4432

His website -- you can get a free $1 Boggs print.
http://www.jsgboggs.com/

So I say, "Money" is what people will take in trade at any given time.

[Boojatta]

7. So not only is time money, but for some people sex is money? e.o.m.

[Goldensilence]

11. money only has meaning when

it is an agreement of a medium of exchange. What makes our Money work? We're told there is a large amount of gold by our govt backing the paper money.

From my understanding the thing that orginally made gold sucha high commidity was in buldings and temples when lit in fire the gold glowed like sunlight.

I wonder if the orginal idea behind the idea of money wasn't so bad. To establish an objective medium for trade. Seems to me now money=control.

Ah capitalism the direction of mankind...based on paper.