Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

World Economy
GA 340

4 August 1922, Dornach

Lecture XII

Yesterday we formulated a very important question which came to the fore with the transition from national economy to world-economy. With this transition the question of price begins to acquire a very different significance in the economic life from what it had before. But there are other things to consider before we can gain a conception of the factors which really determine price. For the price—the public price so to speak—which eventually emerges on the market, or in the circulation of goods, is really of far less economic importance than that which lies behind the forming of prices and of which price-formation and price-fluctuation are merely the final results.

Now these factors which precede the forming of price, both on the buying and on the selling side, are connected with the social relationships in the midst of which the buyer and seller stand. It is these relationships which determine whether the buyer will attach a greater or less value to a certain sum of money. I mean value not only in the subjective sense. Economically speaking, the subjective is only important to the extent that it is properly grounded in the objective—i.e., to the extent that it rests on a true judgment of objective processes. But the value of money is very important even in an objective sense. The economic question nowadays cannot be isolated from the social question. Only by observing the interplay of the two can one reach a valid judgment. Thus we must recognise that the social discontent underlying the present social disturbances is connected above all with that which precedes the forming of prices and of which the forming of prices is merely the final result. As I have shown already, even in the payment of wages—i.e., in that price-formation which, under the existing economic system, ultimately finds expression in the rate of wages—we really have an instance of purchase and sale. Thus everything that leads to wage disputes really depends on social relationships in which both the worker and the enterpriser are involved, relationships of which the upshot is that kind of price-formation which constitutes the payment of wages. Accordingly, the first thing to investigate is: How does money itself influence the forming of price? For money itself plays the chief part nowadays both in ordinary purchase and sale, and in the payment of wages, and in all the rest of economic life as well. We must distinguish between that which eventually emerges as price in terms of money, and that which constitutes the essential value of the money in the hand of one man or another—in the hand of the seller or of the buyer. Today, therefore, we must pause for a moment to consider money as such.

In the current treatises on Economics you will find various elegant statements on the nature of money. For instance, you will find a list of the qualities which money must have in order to permit of its use as money. Let us consider critically some of the qualities which are thus enumerated, for this will show you how necessary it is to get away from many of these current ideas of Economics into a rather different way of thinking. For instance, it is said: In the first place money must have a universally recognised value. But the question is: Who is to be the recogniser? When you have said that money must have universally recognised value you have said nothing. You have simply asserted that it ought to have a certain property, but you have not told how it is to get it. The second property enumerated is still more remarkable. It is said, for instance, that money must be small in volume and yet, being rare, in spite of its small volume it must be possible for it to have a high value. For this property makes money especially easy to store up and, if only for this reason, will constitute a fairly strong inducement to the amassing of wealth. If sovereigns were as big as tables it would be far more difficult to hoard them. Lycurgus saw this long ago and introduced a rather more bulky currency as a preventive against excessive enrichment. If sovereigns were as big as tables it would indeed be less comfortable to get rich than it is now. People would notice it more, and so on. The reason therefore appears to be a rather superficial one. The next thing they say is this: Money must be divisible at will. (I have found this statement, too, in one of the text-books on Political Economy). But this again can only be brought about by some act of recognition. Something must first be done to make it so. It is therefore once more a rather empty statement. Then they say: Money must be easy to preserve. Well, this property of being “easy to preserve” will be brought home to us in its full significance in the course of today's lecture.

You see, we must not only be clear on this, that Nature as such only receives an economic value when it enters into the general economic circulation—when it is taken up by Labour—and again, that Labour only receives an economic value through the way it is organised or divided, and finally, that Capital only receives a value through the fact that it is taken over by the Spirit of Man and so worked into the economic process. We must also be clear that money as such receives its value by the free process of circulation. And now we must consider the changes which money undergoes in the course of circulation. The premises are given to us by what we have said already in these lectures.

Speaking of money, the first thing we have to deal with is ordinary purchase-money—the money we use to buy anything which serves us for consumption. But we must also consider what we may call loaned money. This we have seen in a former lecture. The question now is: Bearing in mind its connection with the whole economic process, is loaned money quite the same as purchase-money? If you are considering purchase-money you will have to ask: How does purchase-money come into existence among all the other elements of buying and selling? It comes about by this means: He who makes use of money, in giving his money, has not only given something which effects an immediate exchange, but he has also given something which mediates an exchange. He gives something which inserts itself into the exchange. As I have shown already in these lectures, everything that enters as a mediator into the process of exchange is money. Suppose I am not content with acquiring as many peas as I can eat myself. Suppose I acquire peas with the object of using them—trading with them—in order to obtain some other things which I require. In that case, simply through this mediating function I am already transforming what would otherwise be an article of consumption into money. Spengler makes a very shrewd observation on this point. Spengler exploits his ideas along a general line of thought which is unfruitful, but he often makes very sound observations. He says: At a certain period of Roman History human beings, economically speaking, became money. The slaves became money. So long as I used the slaves for myself—that is to say, if as an Ancient Roman I only acquired as many slaves as I could use in my own household—the slave was, of course, a means of production. But it is different the moment the slave is hired out or lent. At a certain period of the Roman Empire this was the case. People had so great an army of slaves that they were able to lend them out. They could apply them to all manner of profitable purposes by trading with them. When this took place the slaves became money, so that for that time, we may say, human beings became money. This is a perfectly correct observation of Spengler's, from which you can see once more how that which acts as purchase-money gradually emerges out of what is at first only an article of exchange. It follows from this: Whatever we use as money—to be a really useful form of money—must not merely oscillate, like peas, between the function of being consumed and the function of being passed from hand to hand. For this would involve constant fluctuations of value in the process of circulation. We want something which is used for no other purpose than for mediating an exchange; and to this end there must be a certain—albeit only a tacit—agreement among those who use the money. This, then, is an essential point: The money must only be used for an exchange, for a medium; it must not be used for consumption.

But loaned money is something essentially different from this purchase-money. For in the case of purchase-money you have no other foundation on which to estimate its value—nay, you have no other need to estimate its value than this: How much will you get for it? And as to that, time makes no essential difference. For whether you buy a pound of meat today or after a certain lapse of time, you must estimate the pound of meat according to its consumption-value. Your money may in the meantime have acquired a different value in relation to the pound of meat. But for the human being who eats it the value of the pound of meat cannot, properly speaking, change in course of time. This, however, is essential: The given pound of meat can only be eaten during a certain period of time. That is to say, it can only have a value for a certain period of time. For it goes bad. And this is a very pertinent economic fact. Everything that is a genuine object of use or consumption is subject to decay.

Now, when for the purposes of pure exchange we use money as an equivalent, we must admit that, as against articles which decay, money is an unfair competitor. For, in normal circumstances, nowadays, money does not seem to decay. I say advisedly, it does not seem to decay. Here you can see what an unhealthy element is introduced into the economic life when we bring into it different relationships from those which obtain in reality. By our established institutions money has a fixed numerical value under all conditions. No matter how it may otherwise be placed in relation to the social life, money has its face value and is supposed to keep it permanently. But in reality it does not do so. Everything else is honest. Meat after a period, which varies with its quality, begins to smell. Money does not do this, no matter what its quality may be. Money does not openly “smell.” And yet, when we see circumstances bring it about that an article grows cheaper or dearer after a certain time, we are obliged to admit the following. While the article itself, by virtue of its qualities for human life, must retain the same value (for general conditions will ensure its being consumed at the right moment and a new one substituted for it), the same thing is not true of money. Consequently money, as such, as a pure medium of exchange, is an unfair competitor because it does not reveal in any way the fact that it also is really subject to changes. If I have to pay a certain sum of money for a pound of meat today and a different sum of money for a pound of the same meat a fortnight hence, the difference (the increase for example) in the money I must pay cannot be due to the pound of meat. It must therefore be due to the money. It is in fact due to the money. And if the money still bears the same face value, then the money is beginning to tell a lie, for its real value has decreased. If I must give more in exchange for a pound of meat, the value of the money has decreased. That is quite obvious. In this way, by the act of circulating the money, I bring into the process something which is not really there economically. Economically the facts are otherwise. Economically the situation is that money itself, simply through the economic process, undergoes changes.

We must now investigate the occasions upon which money undergoes changes. In addition to exchange-money or purchase-money we have loaned money. Take for instance the loaned money which a man obtains in order to set on foot some enterprise. For him it is not purchase-money; for him it becomes working capital.1The literal translation of “Unternehmergeld” would be “enterpriser money.”—Translators' note. Now you must see that this working capital, this loaned money, has an essentially different value—an essentially different property. Loaned money is fundamentally different from purchase-money. Except for the fact that it still consists of gold, silver and paper, not many of its original properties are left when purchase-money is transferred to the sphere of loaned money. It acquires its value in quite a different way. The moment loaned money comes into circulation the Spirit of Man seizes it. Human thinking sets to work and it is through this entry of human thinking into the process that loaned money receives its actual value. When a bank-note is lent to a man who is about to undertake some business—at the moment he begins to use it, it would be far more important to write on the note whether the man is a genius or a fool in business. For the value of the loaned money in the whole economic process will henceforth depend upon the way he acts with it.

Lastly we must pass from loaned money to the third kind of money which I mentioned a few days ago. Nowadays as a general rule it is not taken into account and yet it plays the greatest imaginable part in the economic process. In fact, we must now pass on from loaned money to gift-money. Gift-money, fundamentally speaking, is all that is spent on education. This plays an enormous part in the economic life. Gift-money, again, is all that is spent on endowments and the like—all that has the effect of preventing the evil damming up of Capital on the land by Capital investment, which is so ruinous for the economic life. At this point we must say: For the man whose livelihood depends on purchase-money, gift-money simply becomes valueless. It loses its value. Gift-money is the opposite of purchase-money, as we can see from the simple fact that only he who has received the gift can purchase with it; one who has not received the gift cannot purchase with this particular money!

We have therefore three kinds of money, qualitatively different from one another; purchase-money, loaned money and gift-money. Now to comprehend the relation between these three, we must consider economic systems such, for instance, as the private economies which we assumed hypothetically in the last lecture—economies representing a kind of closed domain. There we shall find that after a certain time all that is loaned money passes over into gift-money. Nor can it be any different in the case of that closed economic domain which is “World-Economy.” Loaned money must gradually pass over entirely into gift-money. Loaned money must not be allowed to be dammed back into purchase-money, so as to disturb the latter.

Loaned money, therefore, passes over into gift-money. So it must be in a self-contained economic system. And what does it do in the domain where gift-money is working? It loses its value. Thus we may say, if we take the domain of purchase-money, the money will here represent a certain value. In the domain of “gift” on the other hand, the money has, in respect of all that obtains in the domain of purchase, a negative value. It lets the purchase-value vanish into nothing. Finally, between the two, the transition is brought about through loaned money. The loaned money itself gradually vanishes into gift-money.

Perhaps, ladies and gentlemen, you will say that this is hard to follow. It is. I am only sorry that we cannot go on for months detailing instances where we can see that the facts are as I have stated, with regard to the valuation and devaluation of money. This, however, should really be our task. All that can be said in the present lectures should be taken as a basis for further researches in Economics. In the brief period of a fortnight, only hints and suggestions can be given; but you will find that all the economic statements which have here been made will be transformed by detailed investigation into valuable economic truths—valuable both in science and in practice.

It does actually take place, ladies and gentlemen: In the economic process money undergoes metamorphoses; it acquires different qualities as it becomes loaned money or gift-money. But we mask this fact if we simply let money be money, and use the number inscribed on it as the unit of measurement and so forth. We mask it and the reality takes its revenge—a revenge which reveals itself in fluctuations of price, with which (though they are actual enough in the economic process) our reasoning faculty cannot keep pace. We ought to be able to follow them. If I may say so, we ought not to let money merely flow into circulation and give it freedom to do what it likes. For we thereby do something very peculiar in the economic life. If we require animals for some kind of labour, the first thing we do is to tame them. Think how long a riding-horse has to be tamed before it can be used. Think what would happen if we did not tame our animals, but used them wild, taking no pains to tame them. But we let money circulate quite wildly in the economic process. If and when it chooses to do so—so to speak—we let it acquire the value it has as loaned money or as gift-money. And we do not foresee, when somebody who is an industrialist possesses a money, from whatever source, which has been wrongly transformed from loaned money into gift-money and pays his workmen with it, that the result is quite different from what it would have been if he had paid them, say, out of pure purchase-money.

In effect, the more a man is obliged to pay his workers with pure purchase-money, the less will he be able to give them—that is to say, the cheaper will they have to deliver their products. On the other hand, the more he is able to pay them with money that has already been transformed (i.e., that has already passed into the sphere of loan or gift), the higher wages will he be able to give them. That is to say, the dearer will they be able to bring their products on to the market. The point is to grasp the matter with our reason.

You see, as things are today, the function of money has constantly had to be corrected. Take the case, for example, of a national economy bordering on other national economies. By letting money function in this wild unguided way, without bringing any intelligence into the process, a national economy may easily find itself in a disastrous position with regard to the price of some piece of goods, or something else that is required. So long as the national economy is one among others (and no repressive measures are adopted) the people will simply import the article in question. Their imports will be increased. Things are constantly being corrected in this way. For world-economy, on the other hand, no such correction is possible. We cannot import things from the Moon, If we could import from, or export to, the Moon and Venus and the rest, world-economy would also be like a mere national economy. This is precisely the great question: What becomes of our science of national economy—that is, Political Economy—through the fact that the world is now a single closed economic domain?

And now let us suppose that we really make up our minds to allow money to grow old. Suppose you have a certain piece of money, no matter of what substance it is made, or what is the date inscribed on it. Say it is “1910.” And now you take another piece of money with the date “1915.” The money marked “1915” begins to exist, as money, economically, in that year. And now suppose that by some reasoned treatment it undergoes the process which is undergone by all other exchangeable products, namely, that it loses its value after a certain time. The precise figures I mention are not important; they are merely illustrations. The actual figures required would have to be the subject of infinitely numerous—but perfectly possible—calculations, as we shall presently perceive. Suppose, therefore, for the sake of example, that the piece of money would have lost its value for economic intercourse by the year 1940. It would only have a definite value between 1915 and 1940. For that period it would have, as we shall see directly, a determinable value. If money loses its value in the economic process after twenty-five years, a piece of money bearing the date “1910” will have lost its value in the year 1935. Thus I should assign a peculiar property to the money which I carry about on me; I should assign to it a kind of age. This 1910 money is older; it will die earlier than the other—earlier than the 1915 money. Now you may say: “That is just a scheme.” No, it is nothing of the sort. What I have just explained to you is the actual reality. That is how the economic process actually wills it. The economic process of its own accord makes the money grow old. The fact that it does not appear to grow old—the fact that we still buy things with 1910 money in the year 1940 is only a mask. In doing so we do not really buy with this money; we buy with a fictitious money-value.

If therefore the money in my purse grows old in this way, if its date of origin has a real meaning (and by “growing old” I mean getting nearer and nearer to its death), if this be so, then money, like man and every other living thing, has a certain value impressed upon it by the fact that it is growing older. The money comes to life and a value is impressed upon it. Suppose you have young money, money of the present year—1922 money—this 1922 money will be good purchase-money, needless to say. But now suppose that you are an enterpriser and you ask yourself: “How shall I supply myself with money for my undertaking? Suppose, according to my calculations, my undertaking must be planned for a period of twenty years. Shall I provide myself with old money or with young money?” Then you will say to yourself: “If I take old money, it will have lost its value in five years or in two. Therefore it will not do for me to use old money. If, according to my calculations, I must provide for a long period, I must have young money.” Thus, under the influence of long-period undertakings young money receives its peculiar economic value—a value far greater than that of old money. This economic value really exists—and it is there now. On the other hand, suppose I have to embark on an undertaking which involves calculations covering a period of only three years; in that case I should be a bad economist if I used very young money. For the young money, by virtue of its youth, is the most valuable and accordingly the most expensive. Thus, if I require the money for a shorter period, I shall provide myself with cheaper money. Thus you see, for anyone who has to apply his spirit—his intelligence—to money, the age of the money can begin to play a part, of which he is quite conscious.

Please note, ladies and gentlemen, that this is not a thing which does not exist already. It exists, but in a wild untamed way, which results in mutual disturbance and unhealthy economic conditions. On the other hand, if you tame money, if you really assign to it a certain age, letting young money—as loaned money—be more valuable than old, then you will be impressing the money with its real effective value, the value it possesses through its position in the economic process. This value really only inheres in the money qua loaned money, for even if money is loaned money, yet as purchase-money it still retains its former value. Nor need you consider too carefully whether you ought to provide yourself with other money in addition for what you, as enterpriser, are going to consume. These things will correct themselves of their own accord.

And now remember that free gifts also play a part in the process, wherein they have a very real significance—those gifts of which I have already spoken in various connections. All that we put into the educational system is a gift—notably when it is a question of a really free spiritual life. This, too, is happening already, only people fail to notice it. When you give directly, your intelligence is in the process. As things are now you do give, but the gift is absorbed into the general pool of taxation. It vanishes into a vague economic fog and you do not observe what happens. So the thing runs wild. In the other case, conscious intelligence would come into it. Consider, for a moment, what kind of money you will use where it is a question of free gifts. If you are thinking in a true economic sense, then, where it is a question of free gifts, you will use old money—money that loses its value as soon as possible after the gift is made; provided that the person who takes the benefit of the gift has just enough time to make his purchases with it.

At this point, needless to say, there must be some rejuvenating process. The money, in fact, must have a successor. The important thing is, as you will readily perceive, that things must not be allowed to happen arbitrarily through the general chaos which the Economic State spreads everywhere. The Economic State brings about a hopeless confusion of values by failing to distinguish loaned money, purchase-money and gift-money, though in reality these three are separated all the time. You will readily perceive that if you do not wish to leave the thing to chance—if you wish to bring reason into it—you simply must interpose the necessary associative bodies at the transition points between purchase-money, loaned money, gift-money and the renewal of money. Take the case of one who has money to lend. You will not let him lend it in a senseless way. You will bring him into connection with his Association. The Association will act as a mediator. The Association will provide him with the most sensible way in which to lend, or again, with the most sensible way in which to give. When a gift takes place (and every individual is free to give or not to give) the money, if it has a year-value, as explained above, will not undergo the same process. But the important thing is to bring about sensibly and in accordance with reason the things which happen in any case in the economic process, but behind a mask. The money, when it has served its purpose, must be collected. And then once more, at the beginning of the process of purchase and sale, it must receive its original value. That is to say, it receives its new year-number and passes into the hands of those who are dealing once more with Nature-products, Nature-products which are just beginning to pass into the sphere of Labour. For here it is pure purchase and sale that are going on. This is the associative method of managing things.

The three kinds of money must be treated in different ways. In the first place, gift-money, which is the oldest, must be handed over to an Association which will bring the valueless money back again into the whole economic process, by uniting it with Labour at the point where the Nature-process begins. There can be no economic difficulty in this. What then will be the essential difference from the existing practice? It will be this: In a self-contained economic realm—which, as we saw, is not like a national economy bordering on others, where exports and imports can be carried on—three distinct domains arise, so far as money is concerned:—the domain of loaned money, the domain of purchase-money and the domain of gift-money. And when anything occurs which would otherwise have had to be corrected by export and import from another country, it will be corrected by the three domains. If purchase-money sets up a disturbance, there will be a corresponding flow between the spheres of purchase-money, loaned money or gift-money. These things will adjust themselves of their own accord. Irregularities will undoubtedly arise, and having arisen they must correct themselves. Life cannot go on without irregularities coming in. It is an irregularity when the stomach is full. Accordingly digestion has to follow. In the same way circumstances must continually arise under which, for certain commodities, purchase-money is too cheap or dear—and then the cheap money will flow into the other domain, so that on the other side it becomes dearer again as purchase-money. What would otherwise have been corrected by export and import will now correct itself within the self-contained economy, All that is required is actual human intelligence; this will be brought into the process through the Associations, which will be there observing things with their collective experience and taking the proper corresponding measures.

It is necessary above all to grasp the essential nature of money. People fail to grasp it precisely because it is always there before them without their being able to see what it really is. In the social organism there is no such thing as “money as such,” there are only these three kinds of money. Moreover, each kind of money only becomes what it is at the moment when it is actually entering into the economic process or passing over from one form of economic process to another. In the very process, it is constantly being changed. The point is that we must learn to know money properly, before we can pronounce what part it plays when it becomes an expression of the price of something else. To penetrate the economic process clearly, we must not remain at the surface, merely observing how things appear on the surface. Seen on the surface a 10-franc piece is of course a 10-franc piece today, no matter whether 1910 or 1915 or 1920 is inscribed on it. Outwardly considered it is always the same 10 francs, and of course in ordinary sale and purchase it behaves accordingly. I do not observe that a difference has taken place, till I have less of it—or things have become dearer. But in this very “having less” or “becoming dearer,” there lies inherent what I expounded to you today as the greater or lesser age of the money. To perceive the economic process clearly, we cannot merely speak of cheap or dear money, of cheap or dear commodities. We must find out what money is in its real essence; this must first be recognised and known. For it is with money that we master the economic process nowadays. (We shall show tomorrow how substitutes for money have to be treated in a similar way).

This is the important thing. We must not fight shy of penetrating beneath the surface, into the depths, to see the real underlying facts. We must not speak in economics merely of cheap or dear money in relation to commodities. We must realise that in the living economic process, we have to speak of money being “old” and “young.”

Zwölfter Vortrag

Ich habe Ihnen ja gestern eine sehr wichtige Frage formuliert, die aufgetreten ist, als die Volkswirtschaft sich anschickte, immer mehr und mehr überzugehen in die Weltwirtschaft. Nun, gerade dadurch bekommt aber die Preisfrage eine wesentlich andere Bedeutung, als sie vorher im Wirtschaftsleben hatte. Und wir müssen noch einiges uns ansehen, bevor wir uns eine Vorstellung machen können von den Faktoren, die eigentlich den Preis bestimmen; denn dasjenige, was zuletzt auftritt auf dem Markt oder überhaupt in der Zirkulation der Güter als Preis - als offenbarer Preis, möchte ich sagen -, das ist ja eigentlich von einer viel geringeren volkswirtschaftlichen Bedeutung als dasjenige, was hinter der Preisbildung liegt, was erst zuletzt zu der Preisbildung führt und was auch zugrunde liegt den Schwankungen des Preises.

Nun ist es ja so, daß diese Dinge, die vor der Preisbildung liegen, sowohl auf der Seite des Kaufenden wie auf der Seite des Verkaufenden, daß die sich hineinstellen in soziale Zusammenhänge, von denen es abhängt, in welcher Lage überhaupt der Käufer ist, ob der Käufer einer bestimmten Geldsumme einen größeren oder geringeren Wert beilegen muß - Wert nicht nur etwa im subjektiven Sinne. Volkswirtschaftlich kommt ja das Subjektive nur insofern in Betracht, als es richtig in objektiven Vorgängen begründet ist, als es auf einer richtigen Beurteilung der objektiven Vorgänge beruht. Aber es kommt der Wert des Geldes vor allen Dingen auch in objektiver Beziehung in Betracht. Denn es läßt sich heute nicht die wirtschaftliche Frage ganz abgesondert von der sozialen Frage betrachten. Nur wenn man das Ineinanderspielen der beiden wirklich ins Auge faßt, kann man zu einem gültigen Urteil kommen. Und so muß man schon berücksichtigen, daß die Unzufriedenheit, die soziale Unzufriedenheit, die dann den sozialen Unruhen zugrunde liegt, zusammenhängt vor allen Dingen mit demjenigen, was vor der Preisbildung liegt und sich zuletzt in der Preisbildung auslebt. Indem ich Ihnen gezeigt habe, daß ja auch in dem Entlohnen, also in derjenigen Preisbildung, die zuletzt in der Lohnhöhe sich innerhalb der heutigen Wirtschaft ausdrückt, eigentlich ein Kauf und Verkauf vorliegt, werden Sie verstehen, daß alles, was zu den Lohnkämpfen führt, im Grunde genommen auf den sozialen Zusammenhängen beruht, in denen sowohl der Arbeiter wie der Unternehmer drinnenstehen, und deren Abschluß in derjenigen Preisbildung eben vorliegt, die die Entlohnung bildet. So daß wir also vor allen Dingen wissen müssen: In welcher Weise wirkt dasjenige, was ja sowohl bei Kauf und Verkauf, wie bei der Entlohnung, wie auch im übrigen der Volkswirtschaft, eben heute schon einmal die große Rolle spielt, inwiefern wirkt das Geld als solches innerhalb des wirtschaftlichen Prozesses ein auf die Preisbildung? - Wir müssen unterscheiden zwischen dem, was zuletzt als Geldpreis zustande kommt, und dem, was eigentlich den Wert des Geldes in einer Hand, möchte ich sagen - sowohl in der Hand des Verkäufers wie in der des Käufers —, ausmacht. Wir müssen daher heute etwas das Geld betrachten.

Nun finden Sie ja allerlei schöne Dinge in volkswirtschaftlichen Auseinandersetzungen über das Wesen des Geldes. So zum Beispiel finden Sie über das Wesen des Geldes erzählt in volkswirtschaftlichen Darstellungen eben die Eigenschaften, die Geld, wenn es überhaupt brauchbar sein soll als Geld, haben soll. Nun, diese Eigenschaften, die da angeführt werden, die müssen wir uns doch kritisch einmal ein klein wenig vor Augen stellen, damit Sie sehen, wie man heraus arbeiten muß aus mancherlei, was gegenwärtig volkswirtschaftswissenschaftliche Vorstellungen sind, in etwas Gesondertes hinein. Da wird angeführt, das Geld müsse erstens einen allgemein anerkannten Wert besitzen. Nun handelt es sich darum, wer der Anerkennende in diesem Falle ist, der richtig Anerkennende. Denn damit, daß man sagt, das Geld müsse einen allgemein anerkannten Wert besitzen, hat man noch gar nichts gesagt, sondern damit hat man nur darauf hingewiesen, daß es eine Eigenschaft haben soll; man hat aber nicht gesagt, wie es diese Eigenschaft erhalten kann. Die zweite Eigenschaft ist noch merkwürdiger. Da wird zum Beispiel gesagt: Das Geld soll einen kleinen Umfang haben können und dann doch, weil es sehr selten ist, bei kleinem Umfang einen hohen Wert haben können. Nun ist das das beste Mittel - das hat schon Lykurg eingesehen, der etwas umfangreicheres Geld eingeführt hat als Mittel gegen die unrechtmäßige Bereicherung -, nun ist diese Eigenschaft desGeldes ganz besonders dazu geeignet, daß man es leicht aufbewahren kann, und daß es schon aus diesem Grunde einen verhältnismäßigen Anreiz zur Bereicherung bildet; denn wenn die Zwanzigmarkstücke so groß wären wie ein Tisch, so würde man es schwerer haben, sie aufzubewahren. Es würde die Sache nicht so bequem gehen mit dem Reichwerden wie jetzt; man würde das Reichwerden leichter bemerken und dergleichen. Also es handelt sich schon darum, daß dieses schließlich ja nur aus recht äußerlichen Gründen heraus gesagt werden kann. Dann wird gesagt, das Geld müsse beliebig teilbar sein. Das ist auch etwas, was ich in einem nationalökonomischen Handbuch gefunden habe. Aber das kann man ja auch nicht anders vollziehen als durch irgendeine Anerkennung, durch irgend etwas, was erst geleistet wird. Das ist also etwas, was ziemlich nebulos ist. Dann wird gesagt, es muß leicht aufzubewahren sein. Nun, diese Eigenschaft des Leichtaufbewahrens, das ist es gerade, was uns erst in seiner ganzen Bedeutung entgegentreten wird, wenn wir unsere heutige Betrachtung eben anstellen.

Wir müssen uns nämlich nicht nur darüber klar werden, daß dasjenige, was Natur ist, eigentlich erst einen volkswirtschaftlichen Wert bekommt, wenn es in die Zirkulation der Volkswirtschaft hineinkommt, von der Arbeit in Anspruch genommen wird, wir müssen uns nicht nur klar darüber sein, daß auch die Arbeit einen volkswirtschaftlichen Wert erhält durch die Art und Weise, wie sie organisiert ist, gegliedert ist, und daß auch das Kapital nur einen Wert bekommt dadurch, daß es vom Geist des Menschen erfaßt und in den volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß hineingearbeitet wird, sondern wir müssen uns auch klar sein darüber, daß auch Geld als solches einen Wert durch die Zirkulation selber erhält. Nun müssen wir uns überlegen, wie Geld im Laufe der Zirkulation sich verändert. Dazu liegen schon die Voraussetzungen in dem, was ich Ihnen vorgebracht habe.

Wir haben es beim Geld zunächst zu tun mit gewöhnlichem Kaufgeld, mit demjenigen Geld also, das wir verwenden, um uns etwas zu kaufen, was uns zum Verbrauch dient. Wir haben es aber dann auch zu tun mit Leihgeld - das haben wir ja auch schon gesehen. Nun fragt es sich, ob denn das Leihgeld dutch seinen volkswirtschaftlichen Zusammenhang ganz dasselbe ist wie das Kaufgeld. Wenn Sie das Kaufgeld in Betracht ziehen, so werden Sie sich fragen müssen: Wie kommt denn das Kaufgeld unter den übrigen Elementen des Kaufens und Verkaufens zustande? Nun, es kommt dadurch zustande, daß derjenige, welcher sich des Geldes bedient, daß der nicht nur damit, mit dem Geld, etwas gegeben hat, was einen unmittelbaren Austausch bewirkt, sondern was einen Austausch vermittelt, was sich in den Austausch hineinstellt. So daß alles dasjenige — wie ich schon auseinandergesetzt habe in diesen Tagen — Geld ist, was sich vermittelnd in den Austausch hineinstellt. Ich habe Ihnen gesagt, es könnten von diesem Gesichtspunkt aus Erbsen Geld sein. Wenn ich nicht bloß so viel Erbsen erwerbe, als ich selber aufessen kann, sondern Erbsen erwerbe, um sie dazu zu verwenden, wiederum einen Gebrauchsgegenstand für mich einzuhandeln, so verwandle ich einfach durch die Tätigkeit des Vermittelns dasjenige, was sonst durchaus ein Gebrauchsgegenstand sein kann, in Geld. Es ist sehr geistreich, was in dieser Beziehung Spengler sagt, der ja alle Dinge in einer unbrauchbaren Ideenrichtung verwertet, aber manches vollkommen richtige Aperçu hat, daß namentlich in einer gewissen Zeit der römischen Entwickelung, volkswirtschaftlich aufgefaßt, Menschen zu Geld geworden sind, nämlich die Sklaven. Solange ich den Sklaven selber brauche, das heißt nur so viele Sklaven erwerbe als alter Römer, als ich in meiner Wirtschaft verwende, solange ist der Sklave natürlich Produktionsmittel; in dem Augenblick aber, wo der Sklave auch ausgeliehen wird, wo man, wie es in einer gewissen Zeit der Römerherrschaft der Fall war, ein solches Heer von Sklaven hatte, daß man sie ausleihen konnte, daß man sie zu allerlei nutzbringenden Dingen verwenden konnte, welche man also einhandeln konnte durch Sklaven, da wurde der Sklave zu Geld, so daß man sagen kann für jene Zeiten: Menschen wurden Geld. Das ist ein durchaus richtiges Aperçu bei Spengler. Daraus aber können wir entnehmen, wie das, was als Kaufgeld wirkt, sich herausbildet aus demjenigen, was sonst nur dem Tausch unterliegt. Und es wird sich darum handeln, daß dasjenige, was man dann als Geld verwendet, als Geld am brauchbarsten sein wird, wenn es nicht, ich möchte sagen, hin und her schillert zwischen Aufgegessenwerden und Weitergegebenwerden, wie es die Erbsen wären, wodurch im Zirkulationsprozeß der Wert ja auch wesentlich schwanken würde, sondern wenn es - und dazu bedarf es eben dann einer gewissen, wenn auch stillschweigenden Übereinkunft derer, die sich des Geldes bedienen — etwas ist, was zu sonst nichts verbraucht wird als zum Tausch, zum Vermitteln. Das ist das Wesentliche, daß man es nur gebraucht zum Vermitteln, zum Tausch, also nicht zum Aufessen.

Nun sehen Sie aber, von diesem Kaufgeld unterscheidet sich ganz wesentlich dasjenige, was Leihgeld ist; denn bei dem Kaufgeld haben Sie keine anderen Gründe für seinen Wert, für seine Schätzung, also für seine Bewertung, keine andere Bewertungsnotwendigkeit als diese, wieviel Sie dafür bekommen. Und das ändert auch die Zeit nicht im wesentlichen; denn Sie müssen, ob Sie heute sich ein Pfund Fleisch kaufen oder ob Sie sich in einiger Zeit ein Pfund Fleisch kaufen, das Pfund Fleisch nach seinem Konsumwert beurteilen; und es kann in bezug auf das Pfund Fleisch wohl das Geld einen anderen Wert bekommen haben, aber für den essenden Menschen kann: das Pfund Fleisch eigentlich einen anderen Wert im Verlauf der Zeit nicht bekommen. Nur ist es wesentlich, daß das Pfund Fleisch nur eine gewisse Zeitlang gegessen werden kann, daß es also nur innerhalb einer gewissen Zeit einen Wert haben kann, weil es verdirbt. Das gehört auch in das Volkswirtschaftliche hinein, daß alle Dinge, die nun wirkliche Gebrauchsgegenstände sind, eben verderben.

Wenn wir nun das Geld verwenden als ein Äquivalent im reinen Tausch, dann haben wir allerdings in dem Gelde gegenüber den verderblichen Gegenständen einen unreellen Konkurrenten, einen richtigen unreellen Konkurrenten, weil das Geld eben unter gewöhnlichen Verhältnissen nicht zu verderben scheint - ich sage das ausdrücklich: nicht zu verderben scheint. Ja, da sehen wir, was in das Volkswirtschaftliche etwas Ungesundes hineinbringt, wenn man andere Verhältnisse in der Volkswirtschaft spielen läßt, als diejenigen sind, die in der Wirklichkeit spielen. Wir haben es auf der einen Seite mit solchen Einrichtungen zu tun, daß Geld unter allen Umständen seinen Zahlenwert hat, gleichgültig, wie es sonst in der sozialen Position drinnen steht — Geld hat seinen Zahlenwert und behält diesen Zahlenwert scheinbar. In Wirklichkeit behält es ihn aber nicht. Alle anderen Dinge sind ehrlich. Fleisch beginnt zu riechen in der Zeit, in der es eben nach seinen Qualitäten beginnen kann zu riechen; Geld tut das nicht, in welcher Qualität es auch auftritt. Geld tut es nicht offenbar. Und dennoch, wir müssen uns sagen: Wenn nun irgendein Artikel durch irgendwelche Umstände in einer bestimmten Zeit teurer geworden ist oder billiger geworden ist, da der Artikel in sich selber durch seine Qualitäten im Menschenleben denselben Wert behalten muß - er muß ihn durch die Konstellation behalten, indem er zur rechten Zeit verbraucht werden muß und Neues auftreten muß -, das Geld das aber nicht tut, so ist das Geld als solches, rein als Tauschmittel, dadurch ein unreeller Konkurrent, weil es nicht in irgendeiner Weise zur Erscheinung bringt, daß es eigentlich auch Veränderungen unterliegt. Wenn ich mir heute ein Pfund Fleisch für eine Summe Geldes kaufen muß und in vierzehn Tagen dasselbe Pfund Fleisch für eine andere Summe Geldes kaufen muß, so liegt es nicht an dem Pfund Fleisch, daß ich zum Beispiel das nächste Mal mehr Geld ausgeben muß, sondern es liegt am Geld. Es liegt lediglich am Geld. Und wenn das Geld dann noch dieselbe Zahl an sich trägt, so beginnt das Geld eigentlich zu lügen; denn es ist weniger wert geworden. Wenn ich mehr hergeben muß im Austausch für ein Pfund' Fleisch, ist es weniger wert geworden. Das ist ja ganz selbstverständlich. Also ich bringe dadurch etwas in den Prozeß hinein durch die Zirkulation des Geldes, das eigentlich volkswirtschaftlich gar nicht da ist. Volkswirtschaftlich verhält sich die Sache ganz anders. Volkswirtschaftlich verhält sie sich so, daß das Geld einfach durch den wirtschaftlichen Prozeß selbst Veränderungen durchmacht.

Und wir müssen nun die Gelegenheiten aufsuchen, wo das Geld Veränderungen durchmacht. Außer dem gewöhnlichen Kaufgeld haben wir das Leihgeld, das Leihgeld, das also jemand bekommt, um irgendeine Unternehmung zu entrieren, das für ihn kein Kaufgeld ist, sondern für ihn eben Unternehmergeld wird. Dieses Unternehmergeld, dieses Leihgeld hat einen wesentlich anderen Wert, eine wesentlich andere Eigenschaft. Es ist eigentlich im Grunde genommen dieses Leihgeld etwas ganz anderes als das Kaufgeld. Es bleibt nicht viel übrig, wenn Kaufgeld Leihgeld wird, als, sagen wir, daß Gold oder Silber oder Papier hineingetragen wird in das andere Lebensgebiet. Wert wird die Sache durch ganz andere Dinge. Denn es handelt sich ja jetzt, wenn das Leihgeld in Zirkulation kommt, darum, daß der Geist des Menschen eingreift, daß menschliches Denken eingreift, und durch dieses Eingreifen des menschlichen Denkens bekommt nun das Leihgeld seinen eigentlichen Wert. Es wäre viel wichtiger, auf die Banknote, die geliehen wird dem Mann, der etwas unternimmt, in dem Momente, wo er diese Banknote in Gebrauch überführt, darauf zu schreiben, ob der Mann ein Genie ist in wirtschaftlichen Dingen, oder ob er ein Idiot ist; denn von der Art und Weise, wie er sich damit verhält, hängt nun der Wert dieses Leihgeldes in der volkswirtschaftlichen Situation ab.

Und wenn wir nun von dem Leihgeld zu demjenigen übergehen, was ich Ihnen als eine dritte Art genannt habe, was heute gewöhnlich gar nicht besprochen wird, aber die denkbar größte Rolle spielt im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß, wenn wir übergehen von dem Leihgeld zu dem Schenkungsgeld — Schenkungsgeld ist im Grunde genommen alles, was für die Erziehung ausgegeben wird, das spielt eben eine ungeheure Rolle im volkswirtschaftlichen Leben; Schenkungsgeld ist auch alles dasjenige, was für Stiftungen ausgegeben wird, und alles dasjenige, was bewirkt, daß sich nicht in einer störenden Weise Kapital staut auf Grund und Boden durch die Kapitalisierung von Grund und Boden, wodurch die Volkswirtschaft eben ruiniert wird —, wenn wir uns dieses Schenkungsgeld anschauen, so müssen wir sagen: Dieses Schenkungsgeld, das wird für denjenigen, der angewiesen ist für sein Leben auf Kaufgeld, einfach wertlos. Es verliert seinen Wert. Schenkungsgeld in bezug auf Kaufgeld ist das Entgegengesetzte nämlich, was ja auch schon daraus hervorgeht, daß derjenige kaufen kann, der Schenkung kriegt, während derjenige, der nicht Schenkung kriegt, nicht kaufen kann mit diesem Geld.

Sie haben also drei Arten von Geld, die qualitativ ganz voneinander verschieden sind, Kaufgeld, Leihgeld, Schenkungsgeld. Nun, wie es sich aber verhält zwischen Kaufgeld, Leihgeld und Schenkungsgeld, das ist nur dann zu beurteilen, wenn wir volkswitrtschaftliche Zusammenhänge, sagen wir, so privatwirtschaftlicher Natur, wie wir es gestern hypothetisch angenommen haben, daß sie in gewisser Weise eine Art abgeschlossenen Gebietes darstellen, wenn wir solche betrachten. Da werden wir nämlich finden, daß nach einer bestimmten Zeit alles dasjenige, was Leihgeld ist, in Schenkungsgeld übergeht. Anders kann es auch nicht sein bei dem geschlossenen Wirtschaftsgebiet, das die Weltwirtschaft ist. Leihgeld muß nach und nach ganz in Schenkungsgeld übergehen. Leihgeld darf sich gewissermaßen nicht zurückstauen in das Kaufgeld hinein, um das zu stören. Leihgeld geht in das Schenkungsgeld hinein. So muß es sich im geschlossenen Wirtschaftskreislauf darstellen. Was tut es auf dem Gebiet, wo das Schenkungsgeld arbeitet? Da entwertet es sich. So daß wir sagen können: Indem wir das Gebiet des Kaufgeldes haben, wird das Geld einen gewissen Wert darstellen. Auf dem Gebiet des Schenkens hat das Geld für alles dasjenige, was auf dem Gebiet des Kaufens besteht, einen negativen Wert, läßt diesen Kaufwert verschwinden. Und dazwischen drinnen wird der Übergang bewirkt beim Leihgeld. Das Leihgeld verschwindet allmählich hinein ins Schenkungsgeld.

Sie werden vielleicht sagen: Das ist schwer einzusehen. — Das ist es ja auch; aber es ist ja schade, daß wir hier nicht monatelang können Angaben machen über die einzelnen Fälle, an denen man beobachten kann, wie tatsächlich sich das so verhält, wie ich das jetzt gesagt habe, mit dem Bewerten und Entwerten des Geldes. Das aber würde gerade die Aufgabe sein, daß Sie gewissermaßen dasjenige, was hier in diesem ganz kurzen Kurs gesagt werden kann, als eine Unterlage betrachten würden für weitere volkswirtschaftliche Arbeiten. Nur Anregungen kann man natürlich geben im Verlaufe von vierzehn Tagen. Sie werden aber finden, daß diese hier vorgebrachten volkswirtschaftlichen Behauptungen überall durch die einzelnen Untersuchungen sich umwandeln in volkswirtschaftliche Wahrheiten, die dann wissenschaftlich und auch praktisch verwertet werden können.

Das geschieht nun in Wirklichkeit, daß einfach im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß das Geld sich metamorphosiert, daß es verschiedene Qualitäten bekommt, indem es Leihgeld oder Schenkungsgeld wird. Das aber kaschieren wir, wenn wir einfach das Geld Geld sein lassen und nach seiner ihm aufgeschriebenen Zahl uns richten für die Einheit und dergleichen — das kaschieren wir, dem setzen wir eine Maske auf. Die Wirklichkeit rächt sich, indem sie diese Rache in den Schwankungen der Preise zeigt, die einfach da sind im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß, denen wir mit unserer Vernunft gar nicht nachkommen, die wir aber mit der Vernunft eben erreichen sollen. Man soll, möchte ich sagen, das Geld nicht einfach so in die Zirkulation hineinströmen lassen und ihm nun volle Freiheit geben, zu tun, was es tun will; denn dadurch machen wir eigentlich in der Volkswirtschaft etwas ganz Eigentümliches. Nicht wahr, wenn wir, sagen wit, zu irgendeinem Arbeitszusammenhang Tiere brauchen, so zähmen wir sie uns, und wir verwenden sie dann als gezähmte Tiere. Denken Sie, wie lange man ein Reitpferd einreiten muß, bis man es benutzen kann und so weiter. Denken Sie nur, was wäre, wenn wir Tiere nicht zähmen würden, sondern als wilde verwenden würden, wenn wir gar keine Mühe auf das Zähmen verwenden würden! Das Geld lassen wir so ganz wild im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß zirkulieren. Wenn es ihm einfällt, möchte ich sagen, lassen wir ihm jenen Wert beikommen, den es hat als Leihgeld, den es hat als Schenkungsgeld, und warten dann ab, wenn von irgendwoher irgendein Mensch, der ein Industrieller ist, ein Geld hat, das unrichtig sich verwandelt hat aus seinem Leihgeld in Schenkungsgeld, wenn der dann seine Arbeiter bezahlt, daß das anders sich ausnimmt, als wenn er seine Arbeiter, sagen wir, aus dem reinen Kaufgeld bezahlen würde. Je mehr man darauf angewiesen ist, seine Arbeiter aus dem reinen Kaufgeld zu bezahlen, desto weniger kann man ihnen geben, das heißt desto billiger müssen sie einem ihre Produkte geben; je mehr man in der Lage ist, aus schon verwandeltem Geld, aus einem Geld, das bereits in die Sphäre des Leihgeldes oder Schenkungsgeldes übergegangen ist, zu bezahlen, desto mehr Lohn kann man ihnen geben, desto teurer können sie ihre Erzeugnisse auf den Markt bringen. Es handelt sich also darum, daß wir diese Sache einmal vernunftgemäß erfassen.

So, wie die Dinge nun einmal liegen, mußte ja die Funktion des Geldes fortwährend korrigiert werden. Nehmen Sie einmal an, eine Volkswirtschaft, die an eine andere angrenzt, die kann sehr leicht dadurch, daß sie das Geld als einen solchen Wildling funktionieren läßt, ohne daß Vernunft hinein verwendet wird, in Kalamitäten kommen mit dem Preis für irgendein Gut, für irgend etwas, was man braucht. Solange die Volkswirtschaft unter anderen Volkswirtschaften ist und nicht Repressalien dagegen ergriffen werden, importiert man einfach den Artikel, es vergrößert sich der Import. Dadurch werden die Dinge korrigiert. In der Weltwirtschaft gibt es keine Korrektur, weil man vom Mond keine Artikel einführen kann. Sonst würde die Weltwirtschaft auch nur eine Volkswirtschaft sein, wenn man vom Mond oder der Venus und so weiter importieren und dahin exportieren könnte; aber darinnen besteht gerade die große Frage, was da wird aus der Volkswitrtschaftslehre dadurch, daß die Erde eben ein geschlossenes Wirtschaftsgebiet wird.

Nun, nehmen Sie einmal an, Sie nehmen es in die Hand, das Geld alt werden zu lassen. Sie haben also irgendein Geldstück, was es auch immer hat für einen Stoff oder für eine Zahl, sagen wir 1910, und nehmen Sie ein anderes Geldstück mit der Jahreszahl 1915; nehmen Sie an, das Geldstück, das die Jahreszahl 1915 trägt, also damals als volkswirtschaftliches Geld entstanden ist, würde durch vernünftige Behandlung dasjenige werden, was sonst auch Austauschprodukte werden: dieses Geld würde entwertet sein nach einiger Zeit. Sagen wir, es würde dieses Geld - nicht wahr, die Zahlen, die ich jetzt angebe, sind nebensächlich, können nur verdeutlichend sein, was in der Wirklichkeit hervortreten muß, ist erst Gegenstand unendlich vieler, aber erreichbarer Kalkulationen, wie wir noch sehen werden -, aber nehmen wir an, dieses Geldstück würde 1940 entwertet sein für den volkswirtschaftlichen Verkehr. Dieses Geldstück würde also nur zwischen 1915 und 1940 einen bestimmten Wert haben. Da würde es einen Wert haben, der, wie wir gleich sehen werden, bestimmbar ist. Wenn also Geld nach fünfundzwanzig Jahren seinen Wert verliert im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß, dann hat das Geldstück, das die Jahreszahl 1910 trägt, seinen Wert verloren im Jahre 1935. Es ist so, daß nun, wenn ich Geld bei mir trage, ich dadurch eine gewisse Eigenschaft meinem Gelde beilege, eine Art Alter lege ich meinem Gelde bei. Dieses Geld hier, von 1910, das ist älter, das wird früher sterben als das andere Geld hier, das 1915er Geld. Sie können nun sagen: Das ist ein Programm. — Nein, das ist gar kein Programm, sondern was ich Ihnen hier jetzt auseinandergesetzt habe, das ist die Wirklichkeit. So will es auch der volkswirtschaftliche Prozeß. Er macht es selbst, daß das Geld alt wird. Und daß es scheinbar nicht alt wird, daß man scheinbar mit einem Geld von 1910 im Jahre 1940 noch kaufen kann, das ist nur eine Maske. Man kauft nämlich dann nicht in Wirklichkeit mit diesem Gelde, sondern nur mit einem eingebildeten Geldwert.

Wenn das Geld in dieser Weise, daß die Jahreszahl seiner Entstehung etwas bedeutet, in meinem Portemonnaie alt wird - Altwerden nenne ich Immer-näher-Kommen seinem Sterben -, dann wird ja gerade dadurch dem Geld ein Wert aufgedrückt durch sein Altwerden, wie dem Menschen durch sein Altwerden ein Wert aufgedrückt wird. Jedem lebenden Wesen wird ein Wert aufgedrückt; das Geld wird plötzlich lebendig, es wird ihm ein Wert aufgedrückt. Warum? Nehmen Sie einmal an: Junges Geld, also für das heurige Jahr heuriges Geld, also richtig 1922er Geld, dieses 1922er Geld, das wird ja selbstverständlich ein gutes Kaufgeld sein; aber wenn nun jemand Unternehmer ist, und er frägt sich: Bei meiner Unternehmung, wie werde ich mich mit Geld versorgen? Werde ich mich bei meiner Unternehmung, die vielleicht nach meiner Kalkulation, sagen wir, auf zwanzig Jahre veranlagt werden muß, werde ich mich da mit altem oder jungem Geld versorgen? Wenn ich altes Geld nehmen werde, so wird es eventuell in fünf oder zwei Jahren entwertet sein; also ich kann mich nicht einlassen darauf, altes Geld zu verwenden, sondern ich brauche, wenn ich mit einer Kalkulation auf lange Zeit zu rechnen habe, junges Geld. - Das junge Geld also bekommt unter dem Einfluß langfristiger Unternehmungen einen besonderen volkswirtschaftlichen Wert, einen viel größeren volkswirtschaftlichen Wert als das alte Geld. Dieser volkswirtschaftliche Wert ist dann da, das ist sein Wert jetzt. Nehmen wir aber an, ich habe eine Unternehmung zu machen, die voraussichtlich das, was ich zu kalkulieren habe, nur auf eine Frist von drei Jahren kalkulieren will. Da wäre ich doch ein schlechter Volkswirtschafter, wenn ich jetzt ganz junges Geld nehmen würde; denn das junge Geld ist dadurch am wertvollsten und am teuersten. Also ich werde mir billigeres Geld verschaffen, wenn ich es kürzere Zeit brauche. Und so sehen Sie, daß auf diese Weise das Alter des Geldes für denjenigen, der den Geist anzuwenden hat auf das Geld, eine Rolle zu spielen anfangen wird, die ihm bewußt wird.

Bitte, bedenken Sie aber nun, daß das nicht etwas ist, was nicht sonst auch ist. Nur ist es sonst in der Wildheit vorhanden, und es stören sich die Dinge gegenseitig nur und dadurch werden ungesunde volkswirtschaftliche Zustände hervorgerufen. Dagegen, wenn Sie das Geld nun zähmen, wenn Sie wirklich das hineinfügen, daß Sie dem Geld ein Alter geben und junges Geld als Leihgeld wertvoller sein lassen als altes Geld, dann prägen Sie dem Geld denjenigen realen Wert auf, den es geltend macht, den es durch seine Position im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß hat. Dieser Wert ist wesentlich nur da, indem das Geld Leihgeld ist; denn, auch wenn das Geld Leihgeld ist, als Kaufgeld behält es ja seinen früheren Wert. Sie brauchen sich auch gar nicht so ungeheuer stark zu überlegen, ob Sie nun für das, was Sie als Unternehmer konsumieren, sich noch anderes Geld verschaffen sollen und dergleichen, das korrigiert sich schon von selbst.

Nun aber denken Sie, es kommen jene Schenkungen zustande, die ja im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß auch durchaus ihre Bedeutung haben, jene Schenkungen, von denen ich ja schon in vielfacher Beziehung gesprochen habe. Schenkung ist alles das, was man in das Erziehungswesen zum Beispiel hineinsteckt, namentlich wenn es sich um freies Geistesleben handelt. Aber es ist das jetzt auch schon so, nur daß es die Leute nicht merken. Wenn Sie direkt schenken, dann ist Ihre Vernunft drinnen. Jetzt schenken Sie auch, nur wird es in die Steuer und so weiter hinein gemacht, da verschwindet es im allgemeinen Nebel des Wirtschaftens und man bemerkt die Geschichte nicht. Dadurch aber eben geht die Sache wild, sonst würde Vernunft hineinkommen. Aber überlegen Sie sich einmal, was für Geld Sie verwenden werden, wenn es sich um Schenkungen handelt, wenn Sie nun wirklich volkswirtschaftlich denken werden? Wenn es sich um Schenkungen handelt, werden Sie altes Geld verwenden, das möglichst bald nach der Schenkung seinen Wert verliert, so daß gerade noch derjenige kaufen kann, der die Sache geschenkt bekommt.

Dann handelt es sich darum, daß im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß selbstverständlich die Verjüngung eintreten muß, daß das Geld Nachkommenschaft haben muß. Aber Sie werden leicht einsehen, daß dasjenige, um was es sich nun hier handelt, eben das ist, daß einfach nicht in beliebiger Weise oder durch das allgemeine wirtschaftliche Chaos, das der Wirtschaftsstaat über alles ausbreitet - der eben alles dadurch in die Wertkonfusion hineinbringt, daß er durcheinanderwirft Leihgeld, Kaufgeld und so weiter, während es sich in der Wirklichkeit doch auseinandersondert -, Sie werden leicht begreifen, daß, wenn man die Sache nicht der Willkür überläßt, sondern Vernunft in die Sache bringt, daß Sie bloß die nötigen assoziativen Vereinigungen zu stellen brauchen zwischen Kaufgeld, Leihgeld, Schenkungsgeld und Gelderneuerung. Sie müssen einfach, sagen wir, denjenigen, der Geld verleiht, nicht in sinnloser Weise das Geld verleihen lassen, sondern der steht in Verbindung mit seiner Assoziation. Die vermittelt ihm die vernünftigste Art und Weise, wie er leihen kann, und vermittelt ihm die vernünftigste Art, wie er schenken kann. Wenn geschenkt wird wobei es jedem selbst freistehen kann, zu schenken -, dann macht aber das Geld gerade, wenn es einen Jahreswert hat, denselben Prozeß durch. Nur handelt es sich darum, daß im volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß zuletzt dasjenige vernunftgemäß herbeigeführt werden muß, was ohnedies geschieht, was nur maskiert wird, nämlich daß einfach das Geld, wenn es ausgedient hat, gesammelt wird. Und es bekommt jetzt wiederum im Beginne des Kauf- und Verkaufsprozesses seinen ursprünglichen Wert, das heißt es bekommt seine neue Jahreszahl; aber es geht über an denjenigen, der nun wiederum ein Naturprodukt, ein nun eben in die Arbeit übergehendes Naturprodukt zu behandeln hat wo es sich um Kauf und Verkauf allein handelt. Das ist die Vermittlung auf assoziativem Weg.

Die drei Geldarten müssen in verschiedener Weise behandelt werden. Sie müssen so behandelt werden: Vom Schenkungsgeld, das das älteste Geld sein wird, von dem aus müssen Sie es einer Assoziation übergeben, das wertlose Geld wiederum in den Prozeß hineinzubringen, und zwar da, wo das Naturprodukt beginnt, sich mit der Arbeit zu vereinigen, was ja eine volkswirtschaftliche Schwierigkeit gar nicht bieten kann. Also worin besteht denn nun eigentlich dasjenige, was da anders sein würde als jetzt? Ja, es besteht darinnen, daß in diesem geschlossenen Wirtschaftsgebiet, das nicht eine Volkswirtschaft ist, die an eine andere angrenzt, wo man Export und Import treiben kann, daß darin drei Gebiete entstehen in bezug auf Geld: Leihgeldgebiet, Kaufgeldgebiet, Schenkungsgeldgebiet. Und wenn irgendwo dasjenige eintritt, was sonst korrigiert werden muß von der Nachbarschaft her durch Export und Import, so wird das jetzt korrigiert von den drei Gebieten. Richtet das Kaufgeld eine Störung an, dann fließt Geld in der entsprechenden Weise zu oder ab in die Kaufgeldsphäre, die Leihgeldsphäre — so wie sonst aus anderen Ländern - oder die Schenkungsgeldsphäre. Das regelt sich aber aus dem Grunde selber, weil, wenn Unregelmäßigkeiten auftreten - sie treten auf, sie müssen sich korrigieren: Leben kann nicht darin bestehen, daß keine Unregelmäßigkeiten auftreten, es ist einfach eine Unregelmäßigkeit, wenn Sie den Magen vollgefüllt haben, Sie müssen es wiederum verdauen -, so müssen fortwährend Zustände entstehen, unter denen für gewisse Waren Kaufgeld zu teuer oder zu billig ist, dann fließt das billige Geld in das andere Gebiet hinein, so daß es nach der anderen Seite wiederum teurer wird als Kaufgeld. Was sonst nur durch Export und Import fortwährend korrigiert wird, korrigiert sich innerhalb des Gebietes von selber. Was man nötig hat, ist nur wirklich menschliche Vernunft. Die bringt man dadurch hinein, daß die Assoziationen dasitzen, die aus ihren Erfahrungen heraus beobachten können und nach den Beobachtungen die entsprechenden Dinge in Wirklichkeit überführen können.

So daß man sagen kann: Es handelt sich heute wirklich darum, das Wesen des Geldes vor allen Dingen richtig zu erfassen. Dieses Wesen des Geldes, das erfaßt man einfach aus dem Grunde nicht, weil man das Geld eigentlich immer als etwas vor sich hat, dem man gar nicht ansieht, was es eigentlich ist; denn es gibt nicht Geld als solches, sondern nur diese drei Sorten von Geld im sozialen Organismus, und noch dazu wird jede Sorte das, was es da ist, erst im Moment, wo es eben eintritt in den volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß oder von einer Art des volkswirtschaftlichen Prozesses in eine andere übertritt. Es wird auch im Prozeß fortwährend verändert. Es handelt sich darum, daß man erst einmal das Geld ordentlich kennenlernt, bevor man etwas sagen kann darüber, was es für eine Rolle spielt, wenn es zum Ausdruck des Preises für etwas anderes wird. Denn es ist einfach nur dann der volkswirtschaftliche Prozeß zu durchschauen, wenn man nicht an seiner Oberfläche stehenbleibt und sich bloß anschaut, wie die Dinge an der Oberfläche ausschauen. An der Oberfläche angeschaut, ist natürlich ein Zehnfrankenstück heute ein Zehnfrankenstück, ob daraufsteht 1910 oder 1915 oder 1920, es ist immer dasselbe Zehnfrankenstück, äußerlich angesehen, und im gewöhnlichen Kauf nimmt es sich auch so aus. Das merke ich nur, wenn ich weniger habe, da merke ich, daß der Unterschied aufgetreten ist, oder wenn die Dinge teurer geworden sind. Aber in diesem Wenigerhaben oder Teurergewordensein liegt eben das, was ich Ihnen hier gezeigt habe in dem Ältersein und Jüngersein des Geldes. Man wird also eben nicht zu sprechen haben, wenn man den volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß durchschauen will, von teurem oder billigem Geld, oder teuren oder billigen Waren, sondern vor allen Dingen, weil das Geld das ist, womit wir den volkswirtschaftlichen Prozeß heute bewältigen — daß die Geldsurrogate in ähnlicher Weise zu behandeln sind, davon werden wir morgen noch sprechen -, wird das Geld erst in seiner Wesenheit erkannt werden müssen. Das ist das Allerwichtigste. Da müssen wir uns schon nicht davor scheuen, unter die Oberfläche in die Tiefe hineinzudringen, um zu sehen, was da eigentlich zugrunde liegt. Und wir müssen verzichten darauf, in der Volkswirtschaft von billigem und teurem Gelde zu sprechen im Verhältnis zu den Waren, sondern wir werden uns klar sein müssen, daß im Lebensprozeß der Volkswirtschaft wir zu sprechen haben von altem und von jungem Geld.

Twelfth Lecture

Yesterday, I posed a very important question that arose when the national economy was preparing to increasingly transition to a global economy. Well, this is precisely what gives the question of price a significantly different meaning than it previously had in economic life. And we still have a lot to look at before we can form an idea of the factors that actually determine price; because what ultimately appears on the market or in the circulation of goods as a price—as an apparent price, I would say—is actually of much less economic significance than what lies behind price formation, what ultimately leads to price formation, and what also underlies price fluctuations.

Now, it is the case that these things that precede price formation, both on the part of the buyer and on the part of the seller, are embedded in social contexts that determine the buyer's situation and whether the buyer must attach greater or lesser value to a certain sum of money – value not only in a subjective sense. In economic terms, the subjective only comes into consideration insofar as it is correctly grounded in objective processes, insofar as it is based on a correct assessment of objective processes. But the value of money is also considered above all in an objective relationship. For today, the economic question cannot be viewed entirely separately from the social question. Only by truly considering the interplay between the two can one arrive at a valid judgment. And so one must take into account that the dissatisfaction, the social dissatisfaction that underlies social unrest, is primarily related to what precedes price formation and ultimately manifests itself in price formation. By showing you that remuneration, i.e., the price formation that is ultimately expressed in wage levels within today's economy, is actually a form of buying and selling, you will understand that everything that leads to wage disputes is basically based on the social relationships in which both the worker and the entrepreneur are involved, and which culminates in the pricing that determines wages. So, first and foremost, we need to know: how does money as such influence pricing within the economic process, given that it already plays such a major role today in buying and selling, in wage determination, and indeed in the economy as a whole? We must distinguish between what ultimately results in the price of money and what actually constitutes the value of money in one's hand, I would say — both in the hand of the seller and in that of the buyer. We must therefore consider money today.

Now, you will find all sorts of wonderful things in economic debates about the nature of money. For example, in economic descriptions of the nature of money, you will find the characteristics that money must have if it is to be useful as money at all. Well, we need to take a critical look at these characteristics that are listed there, so that you can see how we need to work our way out of some of the current economic ideas and into something separate. It is stated that money must first of all have a generally recognized value. Now the question is who is the recognizer in this case, the rightful recognizer. For by saying that money must have a generally recognized value, one has not said anything at all, but has only pointed out that it should have a characteristic; one has not said how it can obtain this characteristic. The second characteristic is even more remarkable. For example, it is said that money should be able to have a small volume and yet, because it is very rare, have a high value despite its small volume. Now this is the best means—as Lycurgus already realized when he introduced money of a somewhat larger size as a means of combating unlawful enrichment—now this characteristic of money is particularly suitable for making it easy to store, and for this reason alone it constitutes a relative incentive to enrichment; because if twenty-mark coins were as big as a table, it would be more difficult to store them. It would not be as easy to become rich as it is now; it would be easier to notice when someone became rich, and so on. So the point is that this can ultimately only be said for purely external reasons. Then it is said that money must be divisible at will. This is also something I found in a national economics handbook. But this cannot be achieved other than through some kind of recognition, through something that has to be accomplished first. So this is something that is rather nebulous. Then it is said that it must be easy to store. Well, this characteristic of being easy to store is precisely what will only become clear to us in its full significance when we apply our current considerations.

We must not only realize that nature only acquires economic value when it enters into the circulation of the economy and is utilized by labor, we must not only be clear that labor also acquires economic value through the way it is organized and structured, and that capital also only acquires value when it is grasped by the human spirit and incorporated into the economic process, but we must also be clear that money as such also acquires value through circulation itself. Now we must consider how money changes in the course of circulation. The prerequisites for this are already laid out in what I have presented to you.

When it comes to money, we are initially dealing with ordinary purchasing money, i.e., the money we use to buy something for our own consumption. But we are also dealing with loan money – as we have already seen. The question now is whether loan money has exactly the same economic context as purchasing money. If you consider purchasing money, you will have to ask yourself: How does purchasing money come about among the other elements of buying and selling? Well, it comes about because the person who uses the money has not only given something with the money that brings about a direct exchange, but something that mediates an exchange, that intervenes in the exchange. So that everything – as I have already explained in recent days – that mediates in the exchange is money. I have told you that, from this point of view, peas could be money. If I do not merely acquire as many peas as I can eat myself, but acquire peas in order to use them to trade for another commodity for myself, then simply through the act of mediating, I transform what might otherwise be a commodity into money. What Spengler says in this regard is very clever. He exploits all things in a useless direction of thought, but he has some perfectly correct insights, namely that at a certain time in Roman development, understood in economic terms, people became money, namely slaves. As long as I need the slave myself, that is, as long as I acquire only as many slaves as an ancient Roman, as I use in my economy, the slave is naturally a means of production; but the moment the slave is also lent out, when, as was the case during a certain period of Roman rule, there was such an army of slaves that they could be lent out, that they could be used for all kinds of useful things, which could thus be traded through slaves, then the slave became money, so that one can say for those times: people became money. This is a perfectly correct aperçu on Spengler's part. From this, however, we can deduce how that which functions as purchase money develops from that which is otherwise only subject to exchange. And it will be a matter of what is then used as money being most useful as money when it does not, I would say, fluctuates between being consumed and being passed on, as would be the case with peas, which would cause the value to fluctuate significantly in the circulation process, but when it is something that is used for nothing else but exchange, for mediation — and this requires a certain, albeit tacit, agreement among those who use money. The essential thing is that it is only used for mediation, for exchange, and not for consumption.

Now, however, you see that what is borrowed money differs quite significantly from this purchase money; for with purchase money, you have no other reasons for its value, for its estimation, that is, for its valuation, no other need for valuation than this: how much you get for it. And time does not change this in any significant way; because whether you buy a pound of meat today or whether you buy a pound of meat in some time, you have to assess the pound of meat according to its consumption value; and the money may well have acquired a different value in relation to the pound of meat, but for the person eating it, the pound of meat cannot actually acquire a different value over time. The only essential difference is that the pound of meat can only be eaten for a certain period of time, meaning that it can only have value within a certain period of time because it spoils. It is also part of economics that all things that are real commodities spoil.

If we now use money as an equivalent in pure exchange, then we have in money an unreal competitor to perishable items, a truly unreal competitor, because under normal circumstances money does not seem to perish – I say this explicitly: does not seem to perish. Yes, we see here what brings something unhealthy into the economy when conditions other than those that actually exist are allowed to play a role in the economy. On the one hand, we are dealing with institutions in which money has its numerical value under all circumstances, regardless of its social position – money has its numerical value and apparently retains this numerical value. In reality, however, it does not retain it. All other things are honest. Meat begins to smell when its qualities allow it to do so; money does not, regardless of its quality. Money does not do so openly. And yet, we must say to ourselves: if any article has become more expensive or cheaper at a certain time due to certain circumstances, since the article itself must retain the same value in human life due to its qualities — it must retain it due to the constellation in which it must be consumed at the right time and new ones must appear — but money does not do this, then money as such, purely as a medium of exchange, is therefore an unreal competitor, because it does not in any way reveal that it is actually also subject to change. If I have to buy a pound of meat today for a certain amount of money and in fourteen days I have to buy the same pound of meat for a different amount of money, it is not because of the pound of meat that I have to spend more money next time, for example, but because of the money. It is solely because of the money. And if the money still bears the same number, then the money actually begins to lie, because it has become less valuable. If I have to give more in exchange for a pound of meat, it has become less valuable. That is quite obvious. So, through the circulation of money, I am bringing something into the process that is not actually there in economic terms. In economic terms, the situation is quite different. In economic terms, money simply undergoes changes through the economic process itself.

And we must now look for opportunities where money undergoes changes. In addition to ordinary purchase money, we have loan money, which is money that someone receives in order to undertake some kind of venture, which is not purchase money for them, but rather becomes entrepreneurial money. This entrepreneurial money, this loan money, has a significantly different value, a significantly different characteristic. Basically, this loan money is something completely different from purchasing money. When purchasing money becomes loan money, there is not much left except to say that gold or silver or paper is brought into the other sphere of life. Value is created by completely different things. For when loan money comes into circulation, it is now a matter of the human spirit intervening, of human thinking intervening, and it is through this intervention of human thinking that loan money acquires its actual value. It would be much more important to write on the banknote that is lent to the man who undertakes something, at the moment when he puts this banknote into use, whether the man is a genius in economic matters or whether he is an idiot; for the value of this loan money in the economic situation now depends on the way he behaves with it.

And if we now move from the loan to what I have called the third type, which is not usually discussed today, but which plays the greatest conceivable role in the economic process, if we move from the loan to the gift — gift money is basically everything that is spent on education, which plays an enormous role in economic life; Gift money is also everything that is spent on foundations, and everything that prevents capital from accumulating in a disruptive manner on land through the capitalization of land, which ruins the economy — if we look at this gift money, we have to say: This gift money is simply worthless to those who depend on purchase money for their livelihood. It loses its value. Gift money is the opposite of purchase money, as is evident from the fact that those who receive gifts can buy things, while those who do not receive gifts cannot buy anything with this money.

So you have three types of money that are qualitatively very different from each other: purchase money, loan money, and gift money. Now, however, the relationship between purchase money, loan money, and gift money can only be assessed if we consider economic relationships, let's say, of a private economic nature, as we hypothetically assumed yesterday, that they represent a kind of closed area in a certain way. There we will find that after a certain period of time, all loan money is converted into gift money. It cannot be otherwise in the closed economic area that is the world economy. Loan money must gradually be converted entirely into gift money. Loan money must not, so to speak, back up into purchase money and disrupt it. Loan money goes into gift money. This is how it must be in a closed economic cycle. What does it do in the area where gift money operates? It devalues itself. So we can say that because we have the area of purchase money, money will represent a certain value. In the area of gifting, money has a negative value for everything that exists in the area of purchasing, causing this purchase value to disappear. And in between, the transition is effected by loan money. Loan money gradually disappears into gift money.

You may say: That is difficult to understand. — It is indeed; but it is a pity that we cannot spend months here giving details of individual cases in which one can observe how what I have just said about the valuation and devaluation of money actually works. But that would be the task, so to speak, for you to regard what can be said here in this very short course as a basis for further economic work. Of course, only suggestions can be made in the course of fourteen days. However, you will find that the economic assertions made here are transformed everywhere by individual studies into economic truths that can then be used scientifically and practically.

What actually happens is that money simply metamorphoses in the economic process, taking on different qualities as it becomes loan money or gift money. But we conceal this when we simply let money be money and base our unit and the like on its written value — we conceal this, we put a mask on it. Reality takes its revenge by showing this revenge in the fluctuations in prices that are simply there in the economic process, which we cannot comprehend with our reason, but which we are supposed to comprehend with our reason. I would say that we should not simply allow money to flow into circulation and give it complete freedom to do what it wants, because in doing so we are actually doing something very peculiar in the economy. Isn't it true that if we need animals for any kind of work, we tame them and then use them as tamed animals? Think how long it takes to break in a riding horse before it can be used, and so on. Just think what would happen if we didn't tame animals, but used them in their wild state, if we didn't put any effort into taming them! We allow money to circulate completely wildly in the economic process. When it occurs to it, I would say, let's give it the value it has as loan money, the value it has as gift money, and then wait and see if, from somewhere, some industrialist has money that has been incorrectly converted from loan money into gift money, and when he then pays his workers, it looks different than if he were to pay his workers, say, from pure purchase money. The more one is dependent on paying one's workers from pure purchase money, the less one can give them, which means the cheaper they have to give one their products; the more one is able to pay from money that has already been transformed, from money that has already passed into the sphere of loan money or gift money, the more wages one can give them, the more expensively they can bring their products to market. So it is a matter of understanding this thing rationally.

As things stand, the function of money had to be constantly corrected. Suppose an economy that borders on another. It can very easily get into trouble with the price of some good, of something that is needed, by allowing money to function as a wild card without applying reason. As long as the economy is among other economies and no reprisals are taken against it, the item is simply imported, and imports increase. This corrects things. There is no correction in the global economy because you cannot import items from the moon. Otherwise, the global economy would also be just one national economy if you could import from the moon or Venus and so on and export there; but therein lies the big question of what will become of economic theory as a result of the earth becoming a closed economic area.

Now, suppose you take it upon yourself to let money age. So you have some coin, whatever it may be made of or whatever number it may have, let's say 1910, and you take another coin with the year 1915 on it; Suppose that the coin bearing the year 1915, which was created at that time as economic money, would, through reasonable treatment, become what other exchange products become: this money would be devalued after some time. Let's say that this money—the figures I am now giving are incidental, they can only illustrate what must emerge in reality, which is the subject of an infinite number of achievable calculations, as we shall see—but let's assume that this coin would be devalued for economic transactions in 1940. This coin would therefore only have a certain value between 1915 and 1940. It would have a value that, as we will see in a moment, can be determined. So if money loses its value in the economic process after twenty-five years, then the coin bearing the year 1910 lost its value in 1935. The fact is that when I carry money with me, I attach a certain characteristic to my money, I attach a kind of age to my money. This money here, from 1910, is older, it will die sooner than the other money here, the 1915 money. You may now say: That is a program. No, it is not a program at all, but what I have explained to you here is reality. This is also what the economic process wants. It causes money to age. And the fact that it does not appear to age, that you can apparently still buy things with money from 1910 in 1940, is only a mask. In reality, you are not buying with this money, but only with an imagined monetary value.

When money in my wallet ages in such a way that the year of its creation means something—by aging, I mean coming ever closer to its death—then money is given value precisely because it ages, just as humans are given value because they age. Every living being is imbued with value; money suddenly comes to life, it is imbued with value. Why? Let's assume that young money, i.e., money from the current year, i.e., genuine 1922 money, this 1922 money, will of course be good purchasing money; but if someone is an entrepreneur and asks himself: How will I supply myself with money for my business? Will I supply myself with old or new money for my business, which, according to my calculations, may have to be invested for, say, twenty years? If I take old money, it may be devalued in five or two years; so I cannot agree to use old money, but if I have to make a long-term calculation, I need new money. - Under the influence of long-term enterprises, new money thus acquires a special economic value, a much greater economic value than old money. This economic value is there, that is its value now. But let's assume I have a venture to undertake that I expect to calculate only over a period of three years. I would be a poor economist if I were to take very new money now, because new money is most valuable and most expensive. So I will obtain cheaper money if I need it for a shorter period of time. And so you see that in this way, the age of money will begin to play a role for those who have to apply their minds to money, a role of which they will become aware.

Please bear in mind, however, that this is not something that does not exist elsewhere. It is just that elsewhere it exists in a wild state, and things only interfere with each other, thereby creating unhealthy economic conditions. On the other hand, if you now tame money, if you really introduce the idea of giving money an age and making young money more valuable than old money as loan money, then you impress upon money the real value that it asserts, which it has through its position in the economic process. This value only exists because money is loan money; even if money is loan money, it retains its former value as purchase money. You don't need to think too hard about whether you should obtain other money for what you consume as an entrepreneur and the like; that will correct itself.

Now, however, consider that there are gifts that are made, which are also very important in the economic process, those gifts that I have already spoken about in many different contexts. Gifts are everything that is put into education, for example, especially when it comes to free intellectual life. But this is already the case, only people don't realize it. When you give a direct gift, your reason is involved. Now you also give gifts, but they are made in the form of taxes and so on, where they disappear into the general fog of economic activity and no one notices. But this is precisely what makes things go wild; otherwise, reason would come into play. But consider what kind of money you will use for gifts if you really think in terms of economics. When it comes to gifts, you will use old money that loses its value as soon as possible after the gift is given, so that only the person who receives the gift can buy it.

Then it is a matter of the fact that, in the economic process, rejuvenation must of course take place, that money must have offspring. But you will easily see that what is at stake here is precisely that this should not happen in an arbitrary manner or through the general economic chaos that the economic state spreads over everything – which throws everything into confusion by mixing up loan money, purchase money, and so on, while in reality they are separate. you will easily understand that if you do not leave the matter to arbitrariness, but bring reason into it, you only need to make the necessary associative connections between purchase money, loan money, gift money, and money renewal. You simply must not, let's say, allow those who lend money to lend it in a senseless way, but rather they must be connected to their association. This association teaches them the most reasonable way to lend money and the most reasonable way to give money as a gift. When gifts are given – whereby everyone is free to give gifts – the money undergoes the same process, especially if it has an annual value. The point is that in the economic process, what happens anyway, but is merely masked, must ultimately be brought about in a reasonable manner, namely that money is simply collected when it has served its purpose. And now, at the beginning of the buying and selling process, it regains its original value, that is, it gets its new annual value; but it passes to the person who now has to deal with a natural product, a natural product that is now being put to work, where it is only a matter of buying and selling. This is mediation by associative means.

The three types of money must be treated in different ways. They must be treated as follows: starting with gift money, which will be the oldest form of money, you must hand it over to an association, and bring the worthless money back into the process, namely where the natural product begins to unite with labor, which is not at all a problem for the national economy. So what exactly is different from the current situation? Well, it consists in the fact that in this closed economic area, which is not a national economy bordering on another where exports and imports can be carried out, three areas arise in relation to money: the loan money area, the purchase money area, and the gift money area. And if something occurs somewhere that would otherwise have to be corrected by the neighborhood through exports and imports, it is now corrected by the three areas. If the purchase money causes a disturbance, then money flows in or out of the purchase money sphere, the loan money sphere — as is otherwise the case from other countries — or the gift money sphere. However, this regulates itself because when irregularities occur — they do occur, they must be corrected: Life cannot consist of there being no irregularities; it is simply an irregularity when you have filled your stomach and then have to digest it again. Conditions must constantly arise in which purchase money is too expensive or too cheap for certain goods, and then the cheap money flows into the other area, so that it becomes more expensive than purchase money on the other side. What would otherwise only be continuously corrected by exports and imports corrects itself within the area. What is needed is only true human reason. This is brought in by having associations that can observe from their experience and, based on their observations, can translate the corresponding things into reality.

So one can say: Today, it is really a matter of correctly grasping the essence of money above all else. This essence of money is simply not grasped because money is always seen as something that does not reveal what it actually is; because there is no such thing as money as such, but only these three types of money in the social organism, and what is more, each type only becomes what it is at the moment when it enters the economic process or passes from one type of economic process to another. It is also constantly changing in the process. The point is that one must first become properly acquainted with money before one can say anything about the role it plays when it becomes the expression of the price of something else. For it is only possible to understand the economic process if one does not remain on the surface and merely look at how things appear on the surface. Viewed on the surface, a ten-franc coin today is of course a ten-franc coin, whether it says 1910 or 1915 or 1920 on it, it is always the same ten-franc coin, viewed externally, and in ordinary purchases it also appears to be so. I only notice this when I have less, then I notice that the difference has occurred, or when things have become more expensive. But this having less or becoming more expensive is precisely what I have shown you here in the older and younger nature of money. So if you want to understand the economic process, you don't have to talk about expensive or cheap money, or expensive or cheap goods, but above all, because money is what we use to manage the economic process today — that money substitutes must be treated in a similar way, which we will discuss tomorrow — money must first be recognized in its essence. That is the most important thing. We must not shy away from delving beneath the surface to see what actually lies beneath. And we must refrain from talking about cheap and expensive money in relation to goods in the economy, but we must be clear that in the life process of the economy we have to talk about old and young money.