¶ … dual or alternative currency discussed in one or more readings, or one reading plus the film "Pig Tusks and Paper Money." How do the currency/currencies you discuss help to organize, express, or shape social life? How effective are they? As an organization, the power of money is based on authority. The value and productive power of money depends directly on the perceived strength of the issuing government and the authority conceded to it by the population. This authority has an economic aspect, its capacity to maintain fiscal discipline, to collect taxes, to prevent counterfeiting. It also has a wider political and social aspect. The value of money issued depends on the perceived strength and stability of the government, the military strength and stability of the country and its relationship with other nations, and its capacity to enforce rule of law among its citizens. Authority and trust are complementary forces. Ultimately the strength of a currency depends on the extent to which it gains the trust and confidence of society, which today means the global financial community. Remove this trust and confidence, as occurred during the U.S. banking crisis of the Great Depression or during the recent financial crisis in Asia, and the entire monetary system is threatened with collapse. The ultimate foundation that gives force and effectiveness to this greatest of social institutions is not hardcore physical assets but an intangible human value. However, what money is abstaining in its exchange from one hand to another, if for those hands to actually meet. The societies, which have been so dependent and intermixed, is getting alienated, as the exchange of the most common good- paper money, has no need of personalized attention. The film "Pig Tusks and Paper Money" by & #8230; and the article "Mobile money: Communication, Consumption and Change in the Payment Space" by Maurer shed light on this matter and represent completely different paths back to social engagement.

The film "Pig Tusks and Paper Money" forces the spectator to think back to the time when there was no paper money source which made the world go round, as the film offers a portrait of Papua New Guinea and the two different currencies which co-exist in this area: there's a modern cash economy and a traditional economy which orbits around shells, banana leaf bundles and the tusks of pigs. The film demonstrates the aspirations of one man, Henry Tokabak and his goals to create a bank where the shell money which be treated within a legitimate system of exchange. One of the remarks that Tokabak memorably makes in the film that draws a firm distinction between the difference between coin/paper currency and the exchange of shells and other objects is that "Shell money gets exchanged within the community, but paper money just goes away." Paper money doesn't have the capability of giving back to the community and the circuitous impact that shells and other comparable items have. The indigenous people of Papua New Guinea are able to survive and thrive remarkable well without the necessity of paper money: in fact, for the most part, it's the outside world which requires that they have paper money for transportation costs, taxes and other things.

Socially, the use of shells as a form of currency has a definitive impact on social life, because it takes away the sense of the inaccessibility of money or the unobtainable perspective of money. Rather than coins or paper symbolizing this hard to obtain and inaccessible thing, they use a material which is as indigenous to the earth and their land as these peoples are. In this manner, there's something simply more organic and less exclusive with shell money.

Furthermore, there's something naturally fitting about using shell money. As history has demonstrated, numerous cultures and civilizations have used shell money. Thus, as Tokabak demonstrates throughout the film, going back to shell money in many respects would be like a return to the roots of civilization. "The use of cowry shells as a medium of exchange goes back to the dawn of Chinese civilization. One of the earliest written references is that of an historian, S su-ma Ch'ien, of c. 145-86 BC. He mentions cowries as being used as money in the Shang and Chou periods…The use of cowries as money became common place in most African countries at one time or another and in some, like Ethiopia, cowries are still used in remote corners of the land" (Narbet, 2013). While these particular shells were never used as a form of currency in...

Shells are problematic in that they can get heavy when using large groups of them, making them difficult to carry around. Unlike coins, which are practically indestructible, shells possess the ability to perhaps be chipped or even stomped into dust. They're slippery and it's unclear if there's a mechanism which would prevent them from being forged: the ability to make them authentic and official the way coins and paper money can so easily be made has yet to be determined. Furthermore, it seems as though coins would be easily replicated and counterfeit if one possessed the right equipment.
Thus, in order to prevent the shells from being forged or replicated in an inauthentic manner, there would need to be some sort of stamping mechanism for them, that could carve or engrave upon the outer surface of the shells, distinguishing that they are official currency. Moreover, perhaps the shells could be dipped into some sort of coating for fortification so that they can't be easily chipped or crushed.

Even though these shells never were designated as official currency, the fact that they were used in these tremendously important rites of passage demonstrates how so many civilizations have deemed these shells special and elevated their status. This demonstrates that the aspirations of Tokabek in allowing for greater exchange between shells and common currency, actually isn't such a wild idea, and might be a restorative move in the greater scheme of things, bringing back a larger sense of unity with the earth when it comes to the purchase of goods and services. It also might circumvent the dangers of greed and the worship of money. Gold and silver are far too easy to elevate as precious and hard to obtain, but shells have a more constructive, utilitarian and accessible element to them, thus preventing that kind of worship. Furthermore, Tokabek's ideas for a more informal system of banking seem less wild once one considers how much corruption and complication has ensued within the global banking system.

On the other hand, the portrayal of money in the article, "mobile money: Communication, Consumption and Change in the Payment Space" by Maurer demonstrates how the use of money is truly adapting the ways in which society is evolving and the current way of life is rapidly changing and unfolding. As our culture becomes more focused on the power and importance of immediate gratification and the use of screen-based gadgets becomes more and ubiquitous, it's only natural that the technology be used for the way that we bank. Mobile money systems are an obvious manifestation of this and are something that Maurer thoroughly explores. For example, Maurer presents how, "…mobile phone-enabled systems for value transfer and storage, primarily in the developing world, which are heralded as signal interventions in the effort to broaden financial inclusion and bank the 'unbanked.' Focusing on the stories that circulate in the emergent network of expertise that is calling 'mobile money' into being, it discusses how economic techniques and social narratives about markets -- specifically, narratives about the opportunities for profit and financial inclusion in the 'payments space' -- format a consumer market for mobile money" (Maurer, 2012). At the same time, mobile money is difficult to study and to really understand as it's sort of a hybrid between a service and straight-up money -- thus it's hard to relate the basic consumption patterns (Maurer, 2012).

This is no doubt where the monetary system is headed and there really needs to be a strong system in place to refine the way that money is transferred and exchanged. If a system could be forged which pushes for a greater level of social interaction -- that would truly be ideal for all parties involved. This is in part because human beings are social creatures and generally thrive on interactions. Moreover, forcing there to be some sort of person to person interaction would also mean that people wouldn't too easily forget the entire point of their existence: which is not to make money, but to make a better world and a better life for the people they care about. Thus for a system like mobile banking, it's…