Análisis Sísmico Estático con E.030 (2016)

To a c t as a s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n , money must be w i d e l y t r u s t e d as b o th th e a b s t r a c t e x p re s s io n and th e c o n c r e te r e p r e s e n t a t io n o f c o n t r a c t u a l v a lu e s . The im portance o f th e element o f t r u s t f o r b o th th e emergence and maintenance o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r o f money i s c o r r e c t l y p o in t e d o u t by F rankel (1977) in c o n n e c tio n t o th e n a t u r e o f money in m a r k e t- o r i e n t e d economies. As Frankel ( i b i d . : 12) p u ts i t , money i s not "a c o n s c io u s ly c re a te d a r t i f a c t , but grows o u t o f , r e f l e c t s , and in t u r n a f f e c t s th e e v e r-c h a n g in g r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l s and th e s o c i e t y w h ich th e y compose". That i s , money s p r in g s fro m , expresse s and i n f l u e n c e s th e p rocess o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n between p r i v a t e agents th ro u g h exchange r e l a t i o n s , being th u s e s s e n t i a l f o r i t s e x is t e n c e . In t h i s sense, one can say t h a t money as a s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n grew up w i t h th e m a rk e ts , f o r , th e

more m arket r e l a t i o n s e v o lv e and dominate th e p r o d u c t iv e p ro c e s s , th e more th e c o n c r e te r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o f th e s o c i a l l y accepted s ta n d a rd o f v a lu e are regarded as th e dominant in s tr u m e n t t o d is c h a r g e c o n t r a c t s . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s o n ly when market r e l a t i o n s become th e dominant mechanism i n th e r e p r o d u c t io n o f th e economic system t h a t money becomes a c o n s t i t u t i v e element o f market economies and assumes th e r o l e o f one o f t h e i r main s o c i a l o p e r a t o r s . That i s th e reason why modern market economies cannot be co n ce ive d but as monetary economies. In o r d e r t o f u n c t i o n i n such a r o l e , however, money i n i t s s y m b o lic form has t o be b e lie v e d t o be th e b e a re r o f t h a t r e g u l a t o r y power, f o r t o c la im money in exchange f o r goods always i m p l ie s th e e x is te n c e o f an element o f f a i t h and t r u s t ( i b i d . : 3 2 ) . T r u s t i n th e r e l a t i o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t iv e n e s s between c o n c re te and a b s t r a c t money i s t h e r e f o r e a fundamental element f o r th e m aintenance o f th e s o c i a l space o f measurement and exchange w hich monetary c o n t r a c t s p r o v id e .

The im portance o f t r u s t in t h a t r e l a t i o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t iv e n e s s i s a ls o emphasized by Hodgson (1988: 165), who a f f i r m s t h a t " [ t ] h e e n t i r e economic system f u n c t i o n s on th e b a s is and b e l i e f t h a t o th e r w is e n e a r- w o r t h le s s p ie c e s o f paper o r metal w i l l r e t a i n t h e i r a c c e p t a b i l i t y and c o n s e q u e n tly t h e i r v a l u e " . That i s , t r u s t in money i s a n o n - c o n t r a c t u a l element capa ble o f p ro m o tin g c o n fid e n c e i n th e p r e c a r io u s v a lu e s expressed i n monetary c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s . Given th e prominence o f th e t r u s t in money f o r m a in t a in in g i t as a s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n , th e n , i t i s nece ssary t o d is c u s s th e n a t u r e o f th e t r u s t p r i v a t e age nts h o ld i n money. O nly so can th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r o f money be f u l l y e l u c id a t e d .

For Frankel ( 1 9 7 7 :3 4 ), t r u s t in money i s s o l e l y th e outcome o f th e i n d i v i d u a l r a t i o n a l i t y o f th e age nts and depends on " t h e moral id e o lo g y o f s o c i e t y " t o be m a in ta in e d . In a s i m i l a r v e i n , Hayek (1990: 69) argues t h a t t h a t c o n fid e n c e i s th e outcome o f a process o f s e l e c t i o n o f an a s s e t by th e

p r i v a t e agents from th e m u l t i t u d e o f com peting p r i v a t e monies is su e d in a f r e e and c o m p e t it iv e s o c i e t y , so t h a t th e a s s e t f r e e l y chosen t o s e rve as money becomes th e r e p o s i t o r y o f th e c o n fid e n c e o f a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s o f market o p e r a t i o n s . As a c o r o l l a r y , th e s t a t e monopoly o f money i s regarded by th e se a u th o r s as th e r e s u l t o f th e " s u r v i v a l o f th e medieval id e a t h a t i t i s th e s t a t e which somehow c o n f e r s v a lu e on money i t o t h e r w is e would not possess" ( i b i d . : 3 7 ), th e re b y c o n s t i t u t i n g a permanent t h r e a t f o r th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y o f modern market economies.

Both F r a n k e l 's and Hayek’ s views subsume any s o c i e t a l t o t a l i t y in th e realm o f i n d i v i d u a l r a t i o n a l i t y , th e t r u s t in money as a s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n a r i s i n g , by d e f i n i t i o n , e x c l u s i v e l y from i n d i v i d u a l judgment. Such re a so n in g echoes Wenger's (1892: 250) assessment on th e o r i g i n o f money, w h ich i s viewed as th e u n in te n d e d r e s u l t o f " p a r t i c u l a r , i n d i v i d u a l e f f o r t s o f th e members o f a s o c i e t y " , who s e l e c t among a l l th e com m odities th e one w i t h th e h ig h e r degree o f " s a le a b le n e s s " , w h ich i s th e re b y regarded as th e a b l e s t t o p e rfo rm th e r o l e o f money.^ I n t h i s sense, money i s not "g e n e ra te d by law. In i t s o r i g i n i t i s a s o c i a l , and n o t a s t a t e - i n s t i t u t i o n " ( i b i d . : 255).^^ The e v o l u t i o n o f t h i s p ro c e s s , w h ich combines th e acknowledgment o f th e p r o p e r t i e s o f th e com m odities and th e in f l u e n c e

For Monger (1892: 2 4 4 ), th e n , th e c h o ic e o f one p a r t i c u l a r commodity t o a c t as money i s based on th e d i f f e r e n c e o f degrees o f

s a le a b le n e s s between th e co m m o ditie s, w h ich in d i c a t e s " t h e g r e a t e r o r le s s f a c i l i t y w i t h which th e y can be disposed o f a t a market a t any c o n v e n ie n t tim e a t c u r r e n t p u rc h a s in g p r i c e s , o r w i t h le s s o r more d i m i n u t io n o f th e same". Moreover, i n s o f a r as th e p e r c e p tio n t h a t a c e r t a i n commodity i s more e a s i l y exchanged and t h e r e f o r e more w i d e l y accepted in exchange f o r a l l the o t h e r com m odities s pread s, th e s a l e a b i l i t y o f t h i s commodity i s f u r t h e r enhanced.

D e s p ite h i s f i r m o p p o s it io n t o th e id e a o f c o n c e iv in g money as an i n s t i t u t i o n c r e a te d and e n fo rc e d by th e S t a t e , Menger (1892: 250) concedes t h a t sometimes t h i s may be th e case: " I t i s not im p o s s ib le f o r media o f exchange, s e r v in g as th e y do th e commonweal in th e most em pha tic sense o f th e word, t o be i n s t i t u t e d a ls o by way o f l e g i s l a t i o n , l i k e o t h e r s o c ia l i n s t i t u t i o n s . But t h i s i s n e i t h e r th e o n l y , nor th e p r im a r y mode in which money has taken i t s o r i g i n " .

o f custom and c o n v e n tio n a l b e l i e f s , le ads th e agents t o s i n g l e o u t a commodity ( o r a group o f com m o ditie s) as money. Thus, th e emergence o f th e c o n v e n tio n w hich d i s t i n g u i s h e s and s u s t a in s a commodity as money i s regarded by Menger ( i b i d . : 250) as th e r e s u l t o f an e v o l u t i o n a r y process w h ich s p o n ta n e o u s ly d is s e m in a te s th ro u g h o u t th e s o c i e t y th e b e l i e f t h a t t h a t commodity bears th e h ig h e s t degree o f s a l e a b i l i t y . In t h i s way, th e o r i g i n o f money maybe l a r g e l y i n t e r p r e t e d as an a c c id e n t a l p ro ce ss, devo id