Skip to main content

Money, Money, Money

On Wednesday, the limit on cashless transactions rises from £30 to £45. Curiously some retailers seem to have been allowing much higher values for some time when an electronic card, embedded in my Google App on my phone, is used rather than the "real" thing.

Either way, it is part of a quite sudden change for money.

It has long been the case that the value of transactions conducted using what we call cash (this paper stuff or coins ain't cash - I'll come back to that) is far outweighed by electronic money moved around from computer to computer.

The total face-value of Scotland's banknotes, cherishing them as we do, is less than 100th of the daily transaction amount in our economy. Probably; certainly the ratio is quite large.

But now touch-and-go has become the "cash-du-jour" for most transactions in just a couple of years. For my part, I now average less than one traditional cash transaction per month.

The number of transactions using banknotes or coins has dropped dramatically. We need to respect and support those still dependent on "cash".

I feel a bit guilty about that because for some time, any coins I had in my pocket, I passed to homeless guys and gals I passed on my way to Parliament. Now that I don't have any such, it has become an occasional furtive passing of a tightly folded fiver to a few "favourites" with whom I have regular conversations.

Either way, my action is hardly going to transform their lives. But we appear to be becoming more communitarian as we face the common enemy which is the COVID-19, or Coronavirus, bug.

And in my seeing that, I see a chance that around the world, we realise - Trump and other authoritarians notwithstanding - the value of shared community action and values. The days of "the deil taks the hin maist" might soon be over.

My daily walk, yesterday about 5 miles, continues. And with it a marked improvement in my fitness and a modest decline in my weight. Always as well to remember that fat weighs less than muscle. Converting some of my blubber back into muscle may not be reflected in my daily weigh-in.

Being in the country at this time of year, and being able to walk in it each day, is a blessing beyond price.

Yesterday I tweeted a photo of daffodils on the verge of the country road along which I was walking. It lead to as large a burst of social media response as I have seen for some time. A joyous, delighted response.

In our area it is said, quite a few people have made this point to me so there must be something in it, that local competitive daffodil growers, of whom there are many, would discard bulbs they adjudged not to be up to snuff, by planting them on our road verges.

The many thousands we see there at this time of year certainly could not have got there by accident or natural processes.

But something more substantial, if less immediately satisfying to the senses, is happening in the fields beyond the verges.

On my walks, I see our farmers out from dawn to dusk, seven days a week, to make sure we eat well, and eat local, in the year to come. The miasma of well-rotted dung hangs in the air. For once, a brisk wind is welcome as a means of distributing what would otherwise be high local concentrations of the aroma of farming activity.

Such arable farming is surprisingly recent. And is, by most accounts, why we have money at all.

For much of humankind's existence, we fed ourselves by hunting and foraging—a precarious way of living that inevitably led to significant fluctuations in population numbers. A few bad years might have wiped out our entire race and prevented our pre-eminence today.

The first transition was to a herdsman culture. And with that came the first relatively widespread creation of people with wealth. That wealth was visible in the number of animals owned by an individual or clan. Their animals were among the first things which could be exchanged for something held by another which we desired to own.

The next transition was to arable farming—an agrarian revolution which most think took place in Samaria about ten thousand years ago. A blink of the eye ago in the timeline of the human story.

If you were lucky, you had three harvests a year. And for less effort than being a herder. Much less effort than being a hunter and forager. Uncertainty had been reduced. Life became a wee bit easier.

But your wealth needed to be stored between harvests and drawn down as consumption between them.

A system of communal grain stores became established. And with it (probably) the first system of recording wealth. When a farmer put a sack of grain, of a uniform size of course, the first measurements were now being made, into the store, a bit of string on the store's wall had a knot tied in it for each sack. Each farmer's bit of string was their ledger and each knot represented their wealth. And when they came back to retrieve a sack, not necessarily a sack they had put in, the knot was undone.

So money became an arbitrary mechanism for measuring value while having little or no intrinsic value in itself. What's a piece of paper worth?

But even that (probably) first type of money had a familiar snag. Depreciation; loss of value of "money in the bank". In the communal grain store, rats would eat away at the grain, reducing the value of the community's asset.

So they had to develop a way of sharing that loss. The dawn of book-keeping approached. And of book-keepers. And of bankers. And of central bankers, paid to act in the community's interest. (Disclosure: I worked for a bank for 30 years and occasionally, twice?, found myself sitting at the boardroom table of the Bank of England discussing crises.)

Their solution to the problem of depreciation? Cats to kill the rats. Is this why cats became gods for the Ancient Egyptians? Why we worship cats at home?

Dogs were an aid in the hunting world and came into our lives earlier than cats. But cats protected our wealth.

Discuss.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Finding the question

Until I looked further into the matter, I had always attributed the phrase, "Two countries divided by a common language", to Winston Churchill. It seems to make sense as he seemed to be referring to his parents, father English, a mother from the United States.

But it seems I shall need to update both my database of quotations and my memory.

Mr Google has taken me to the information that in The Canterville Ghost (1887), Oscar Wilde wrote: "We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language". He also takes me to the suggestion that George Bernard Shaw said, "England and America are two countries divided by a common language".

The question as to which of Wilde or Shaw originated the phrase, if either did, seems to remain open. I do note that Wilde has a clear claim to 1887 while Shaw's writing career came somewhat later. So I plump for Wilde.

Unless Churchill started using this phrase when he was thirteen years old, he…

Non-taxing times

There aren't many substitutes for lived experience. Book learning is more than useful mainly because it fills one's head with questions as well as knowledge.

Being a member of a numerical majority can breed certain unconscious complacencies. Plural. I had no influence over being born white and male. But carry total responsibility for what I then do.

It's not often I will quote a Labour MP with commendation. But a comment article in one of today's papers by such a person caused me to realise that my reaction to recent events was an example of unconscious bias in my thinking.

The UK Prime Minister has announced his economic response to the pandemic. It can be criticised on so many fronts. And my take on it, as with many commentators, was largely economic. It's tiny compared to the need. It's not new money. It provides little or nothing for Scotland and Wales. All true.

Investing in infrastructure is suggested as a way of building a way out of the economic crisis …

Watch my back

Every family is different, and every child will be a distinct character formed by their DNA and by their experience of life. If many of the contacts I have had over the years are anything to go by, grandparents are a vital part of most families. Yesterday's announcement that young children can hug their non-shielding grandparents will be widely welcomed.

It's not something my personal experience has exposed me to. My siblings and I grew up in a family without grandparents. When my parents married at the ages of 32 and 37 all but one of their parents had already died. As the eldest in the family, I overlapped my maternal grandmother's life by a mere fourteen months and have no recollection of her. Indeed I have no photographs of my mother's parents apart from one which may be of me on my grannie's lap. There's no one left to check with.

My family seem to have bred very late in their lives. My youngest grandparent, Alexander Campbell MacGregor, a Gaelic speaker f…