Basal Modus

Research

2023

The simplest, most accurate way to think about money would be to view it as a measure of status within the broader system it serves. For individuals, money earned begins as a record of their energetic input into some system, which is used to obtain the means of survival through that system by paying what is essentially a buy-in and ante fee. When accumulated, money also forms a ledger that allows each participant a universally comparable, relative sense of their status within that system, where the more money one has, the higher one’s rank is in terms of relative status.

Generally, the accumulation of status is highest valued when exchanged for influence over other humans. Modern monetary systems have evolved particularly effective characteristics for directing collective action, which is the most powerful force collective bodies have for shaping our realities. By implication, the owners of the right to directly create more currency, the owners of vast quantities of currency, and the owners of the assets which consistently attract currency are much more powerful than the majority of individuals.

Today, we can understand the desire of monetary systems to promote commercialized economies as the intention to create endless opportunities to spend earned status on the outputs of other individuals. These so far infinite avenues of spending that have been “commercialized” exist alongside the markets which deal in the systems of influence over collective action. A common practice in such monetary systems is to price meaningful participation in systems of collective influence out of the reach of most people’s individually attainable lifetime earnings, but within reach of a seemingly infinite spectrum of commercial systems of spending.

In the national context, similarly to at the individual level, status is measured by amounts of money, in American dollar terms, that accumulates or transacts within a national collective body. The ranking derived from this cumulative stock and stock of flow then determines the amount of status a nation has in the “western” monetary system. This status can again be exchanged for influence over collective systems or fed into commercial systems. Today, the dominant framework for the interaction of monetary systems is architected to formalize certain biases which limit access to systems of influence as well.

While many inconsistencies and conflicts of interest stem out of frameworks of monetary systems that skew unilaterally in consideration, which all become sources of existential risk, it is obviously exceedingly difficult to specify a complete system that can elegantly navigate uncertainty at all times. It could be said with validity that the best system for organizing collective action is simply one with great flexibility and a united sense of underlying purpose in its participants. Or maybe one which enables participants to navigate complexity with a great sense of balance. Ultimately, what is most important is the materialization of continued effort towards collective progress, in the persistence of life.

For the individual though, these philosophical considerations are less relevant than the mechanical implications of these systems. It is important to recognize that individual expectations of status deserved for their participation may not align with the national ambitions, and in these cases, the national interests can dominate. This is particularly important to consider given the implicit coercions which exist in all modern monetary systems, which up to a point, reflects the fundamental scarcities of nature which we are attempting to organize around. Other common existential risks include social reliance on illusionary or purely abstract emergent assumptions of monetary systems, which can be shattered when great events force reformulations in the set of things of relative value.

Locke