"I Store Meat in the Belly of my Brother"

Ever since reading Charles Eisenstein’s wonderful book Sacred Economics, I have been struck by the profound meaning of this seemingly simple concept. Eisenstein was quoting a member of an Amazonian tribe who explained his thinking following a successful hunt.

An individual who kills a large animal has far more meat than he can consume by himself. So what should he do?

If he keeps all of the meat for himself, in a matter of days he will have a pile of rotting meat. In other words, his asset will have quickly become a liability. Hoarding meat is not only not beneficial; it is positively harmful. Rotting meat attracts insects, disease and predators. Therefore, even if the hunter is completely focused on his own self-interest, it would be irrational to keep all of the meat for himself.

Whereas if he shares the meat with other members of his community, he will benefit in a variety of ways. He will earn the gratitude of those he shares with, and they will be more likely to share with him when they are the ones who have a surplus of meat. Plus, he won't have to deal with the inconvenience and danger of having a stinking, fly-infested pile of meat. So, even from a purely self-interested point of view, sharing is the best strategy. It is the ONLY way of preserving his wealth for more than a few days.

But now let's think about what happens when money is introduced into the equation. Now, the hunter can sell his excess meat for money, which he can store indefinitely. Therefore, if he is focused purely on his own self-interest, he no longer has an incentive to share with his community. In other words, the introduction of money completely transforms the incentive structure facing the hunter.

How is it possible that something that was invented to facilitate the exchange of goods and services has fundamentally altered the nature of those exchanges?

The physical nature of matter incentivizes cooperation and sharing. And it is not necessary to appeal to people's higher motives in order to get them to behave in a way that benefits the community. Their own self-interest will convince them that doing so is the best strategy.

But money changes all of that. It makes it possible to hoard wealth indefinitely and therefore eliminates the incentive to share. And this is because our existing form of money is irrational and unnatural. Money, properly understood, should be a neutral medium that expands the range of possible economic exchanges without changing their fundamental character. But our form of money doesn't do that.

Any form of money that alters the incentive structure inherent in nature is a bad form of money. And the reason why our existing form of money does this is because of its unnatural hoardability. Our money is designed to function as a “store of value”. I refer to this as the “original sin of money”.

Money should not be used to store wealth. That is not its appropriate function. Money should be used exclusively to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. And any form of money that can be hoarded is in conflict with the laws of nature and fundamentally alters the natural imperative to cooperate and share with our fellow man.