RE: Does the United States Have Enough Space Bucks to Pay for Universal Basic Income?
I just wrote an article on similar themes here - https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@revo/what-can-iceland-and-cryptocurrencies-tell-us-about-a-new-monetary-system-and-a-universal-basic-income
Keep in mind that while money is a measuring device, more importantly it's a placeholder for value (and value is what is traded in capitalism). So it holds value itself. Remove money somehow, and you remove value. And this relationship was even more direct back in the great depression as money was backed by a physical valuable commodity (gold). Interestingly what you find in times of economic calamity like that (and the GFC) is that alternative currency (i.e. space bucks) proliferate and step in to the role of some of the AWOL state money.
The good point you make in your article (and I make in mine) is that money isn't some mystical thing that we have no control over and have to be subservient to its random whims. The means of exchanging value is something that we are fully in control of and something we can manipulate as necessary to keep economic activity happening.
Just to clarify a bit... Unlike inches, value doesn't exist independent of the thing that measures it. Distance exists regardless of whether there are rulers around to measure it. Value, on the other hand, doesn't exist until it is measured. So you need money (or some analogue) for value to manifest.
Nice blog post! Upvoted, resteemed, and shared on Reddit.
I'd go a bit further as to what money is attempting to measure (I say attempting because it definitely does not measure a great deal of value) and suggest that money is measuring trust. I think the fact "In God We Trust" is on US currency is more fitting than people think. The only reason any currency holds value is a collective belief that it does. We trust that it has value, and we trust that by giving it to someone, we can get what we want in return, and the person accepting it trusts that they can in turn use it to get what they want.
I linked to it in my post, but Alan Watts had a wonderful example that he used to help explain money.
I like how this thought experiment disappears the gold without anything changing, because its physical presence doesn't matter. It's our collective belief that gold has value, and that money can be exchanged for gold, that gives gold-backed currency value. But fiat money also has value, as does cryptocurrency, if we believe it does, and trust it will continue.
Personally, I love the idea of creating money equally in the hands of citizens instead of letting banks do it, or letting government do it in a way that they get to decide what to do with it. Citizen seigniorage is a full decentralization of currency creation, and I think because money is a public good, it only makes sense.
If you're interested, I highly recommend this paper along these lines and those you wrote about Iceland. Cheers!
Cheers for that Scott. I'll take a look at those.