Essay Three

Revaluation & Reparative Economy

The Idea of Money, the Fluidity of Value, and the Swapping of Options

“The [financialization] of daily life means the imposition of impersonal rules and regulations; impersonal rules and regulations, in turn, can only operate if they are backed up by the threat of force. And indeed, in this most recent phase of [financialization], we’ve seen security cameras, police scooters, issuers of temporary ID cards, and men and women in a variety of uniforms acting in either public or private capacities, trained in tactics of menacing, intimidating, and ultimately deploying physical violence, appear just about everywhere—even in places such as playgrounds, primary schools, college campuses, hospitals, libraries, parks, or beach resorts, where fifty years ago their presence would have been considered scandalous, or simply weird.”

— David Graeber, from The Utopia of Rules

Part II.

Imagine, if you will, a river flowing through a valley, a fluid in flux, feeding fauna, flora, and fungi along its course.

Imagine walking up to this river and dipping a vessel into it, a small cup. In doing so, you take a measure of water from the river. You now possess a cup of water that you may drink, hold onto, or give away. At the same time, in and through dipping the cup into the river and taking a measure of water, you have also generated some spillage, some overflow. As you walk away from the river and up the hillside with your measure of water, you will notice that, along the course that you take up the hillside, water drips and drops from the cup and from your hands, leaving behind little puddles, droplets, and rivulets that feed fauna, flora, and fungi that happen across them.

Now, imagine that you have walked from the river to the hilltop that overlooks it and, having reached the hilltop, you drink the measure of water that you took from the river. After drinking this measure of water, while in the midst of enjoying the hilltop view, very suddenly, you suffer a heart attack and you die. Over the next few hours, days, weeks, scavengers and decomposers consume your dead body, each of them taking from your body some measure of the measure of water that you took from the river. Ay, and each and every scavenger and decomposer produces some spillage, some overflow as they take a measure of your water, leaving a trail of drippings and droppings behind them as they abandon your carcass, and these drippings and droppings feed fauna, flora, and fungi that happen across them.

Then comes the rain. What remains of the puddles, droplets, and rivulets of water that you left behind you as you walked uphill, what remains of the drippings and droppings of the creatures who consumed and decomposed your corpse, and what remains of your last gulp of water in your decomposing carcass—all of this flows back down the hill and returns to the very river from which you took your last measure of water, feeding fauna, flora, and fungi on the re-course, on the return journey to the river.

Let us stop here and take a step back. Reflecting upon this scenario, you will recognize that a cup’s capacity to take a measure of water from a stream or reservoir can serve five different purposes, can function in five different ways:

First, a cup can be used to take and hold a measure of water from a stream or reservoir: that is to say, the cup can serve as a store of water.
Second, a cup can serve as a unit of account for measures of water taken from a stream or reservoir: for instance, water taken from the river may measure one cup, or a ½ cup, or a ¼ cup, etc.
Third, one can give a cup containing a measure of water to someone else in exchange for something else: that is, the cup can serve as a means of payment.
Fourth, I can give you a full cup of water now if you promise to take the cup back down to a stream or reservoir and bring back an equal measure of water for me: that is to say, the cup can function as a standard of deferred payment.
Fifth, and finally, one can let water overflow and spill from the cup as it takes a measure of water, and one can leave a fortuitous trail of drippings and droppings as one conveys this measure of water elsewhere: that is to say, the cup can serve as a dissipator of water thanks to its in-ability to contain all that it draws in and its ability to leave behind a trail of fortuitous drippings and droppings wherever it goes.

Let us stop here and take another step back. I hope that you have come to two realizations at this point but, if you haven’t yet done so, allow me to propose two realizations for you. First, I want to propose that value is the fluid that sustains living cultures akin to the fluid that sustains living creatures, akin to water. Second, I want to propose that a good or service that promises to be of monetary significance is a receptacle with the capacity to take measures of value from streams and reservoirs of value, akin to a receptacle with a capacity to take measures of water from streams and reservoirs of water. Alas, I will not speculate on the nature (or artifice) that characterizes the fluidity of value in this essay, as my focus in this essay is economics rather than metaphysics. Knowing full well that this focus leaves much to be desired, I shall beg your pardon and ask that you read on to judge my idea of the fluidity of value according to whether or not it enables you to take note of things that you would have otherwise overlooked.

Indeed, in light of the idea of the fluidity of value, I would first like to reconsider what it means to possess value. Water courses through the different ecologies that make up the biosphere, the global ecology, in such a way that no one person can truly claim ownership over streams and reservoirs of water. Similarly, value courses over and through the different economies that make up the global economy in such a way that no one person can truly claim ownership over streams and reservoirs of value. That being said, however, people do claim ownership over streams and reservoirs of water and of value, and they maintain their ownership claims with threats of violence. My point here is that one can only claim ownership over streams and reservoirs of water and of value in and through denying others access to streams and reservoirs of water and of value: a billionaire’s claim to possess certain streams and reservoirs of value is a false claim that is maintained with threats of violence, akin to the threats of violence with which a despot makes a false claim to possess certain streams and reservoirs of water. It is might that makes property rights over streams and reservoirs of value.

Going further, I would next like to reconsider what it could mean to determine the amount of value in a stream or reservoir of value. We speculate the measure of water flowing through the biosphere to be 326 million trillion gallons without being able to actually deposit all of the water in the biosphere in actual gallon jugs. Similarly, we speculate the measure of value flowing through the global economy to be 87,752 trillion American dollars without being able to convert the global economy into American dollars that can be deposited in an account. Going further still, a significant measure of the water in the biosphere is contained in lifeforms and cannot be converted into actual gallons of water without liquidating lifeforms, without killing living creatures. Similarly, a significant measure of the value of the global economy is contained in lifeways and cannot be converted into deposits, without liquidating lifeways, without killing living cultures. David Graeber, in Debt: The First 5,000 Years, has pointed out that throughout human history periods during which deposits (as opposed to speculations) form the basis for economic activity are periods during which lifeways are constantly under threat of liquidation, and periods during which speculations (as opposed to deposits) form the basis for economic activity are periods during which lifeways are spared so many threats of liquidation. In other words, those who need to make deposits will feel more compelled to liquidate their lifeways, while those who can speculate instead of making deposits will feel less compelled to liquidate their lifeways.

In light of all of the above, I prefer to speak of three different kinds of financial services.

First, I speak of financial services that enable people to gain access to and draw value from streams and reservoirs of value: these financial services are what I call “valueworks” by analogy with “waterworks”.
Second, I speak of financial services that enable the liquidation of lifeways so as to make deposits (as opposed to speculations): these financial services are what I call “devaluations”.
Third, I speak of financial services that enable the continuation of lifeways by making speculations (as opposed to deposits): these financial services are called “transvaluations”.

When considering the four more common financial services that economists attend to (accounting services, payment processing services, debt services, and value storing services), I consider whether and how these different services contribute to valueworks, to devaluations, and to transvaluations. I say that a financial service is artless to the degree that it contributes to devaluations, and that it is artful to the degree that it contributes to transvaluations. Contributing to valueworks in and of itself neither makes a financial service artless nor artful, but contributing to valueworks in a way that promotes devaluations makes a financial service artless, and doing so in a way that promotes transvaluations makes a financial service artful.

The financialization of everyday life in America is defined by artless financial services that devalue the lifeways of the underprivileged and powerless multitudes. The financial services that prevail in America today give privileged and powerful oligarchs exclusive access to bountiful streams and reservoirs of value, so that these privileged and powerful oligarchs are never in desperate need of deposits, but these very same financial services only allow the underprivileged and powerless multitudes to access meager streams and reservoirs of value that cannot be easily drawn from and, as a result, the underprivileged and powerless multitudes are constantly facing pressures to devalue and liquidate their lifeways whenever they need to make deposits.

If you will indulge an ecological metaphor, devaluation is akin to desertification. Just as desertification creates natural landscapes in which deposits of water become harder and harder to find, devaluation creates cultural landscapes in which deposits of value become harder and harder to find. Today, as a result of the financialization of everyday life, powerful and privileged oligarchs and their retinues live in value oases with plentiful deposits of value that are manufactured and maintained by elaborate valueworks. In turn, the underprivileged and powerless multitudes live in growing value deserts with meager deposits of value, and these value deserts are manufactured and maintained by the same elaborate valueworks that maintain the value oases of the powerful and privileged.