Weber believes Money is a politico-economic institution inserted into, and made effective by, a ‘ruling
organization’—another crucial Weberian concept; like all institutions, it privileges certain interests and
disadvantages others
Smith believes money is an increasingly universal mean of exchange, which replaces direct exchange (of
goods & services) by indirect exchange through universal/transportable/infinitely divisible/durable
commodity
After world war two it was sociological tradition to follow Smith & not Weber
(sociology) opted for a quiet life and chose to conceive of money, if at all, in the manner of Smith, as an
interest-neutral medium of communication, rather than as a social institution shot through with power—as
a numerical value, a rather than a social relation
In Parsonian systems theory, money appears as a representation of purchasing power, the capacity to
control the exchange of goods. It also has the special social function of conferring prestige, and thus acts
as a mediator between ‘detailed symbols and a broader symbolization’
money develops, as in Smith, through the growth of the division of labor, which demands an abstract
representation of economic value so as to make the expansion of exchange possible.
> Editor's note: What are the right avenues to take pro-population arguments where human capital or
labor is guaranteed to create wealth and well being for the economy and money. Yes, money does grow
through the division of labor of more human beings to accomplish an arbitrary goal based on expected
correlated outcomes in production which bring returns to compensate that arbitrary population. Yet this
isn't guaranteed; even basic labor let alone contemporary financial instruments are subject to error and
exploitative manipulation which can result in crisis.
organization’—another crucial Weberian concept; like all institutions, it privileges certain interests and
disadvantages others
Smith believes money is an increasingly universal mean of exchange, which replaces direct exchange (of
goods & services) by indirect exchange through universal/transportable/infinitely divisible/durable
commodity
After world war two it was sociological tradition to follow Smith & not Weber
(sociology) opted for a quiet life and chose to conceive of money, if at all, in the manner of Smith, as an
interest-neutral medium of communication, rather than as a social institution shot through with power—as
a numerical value, a rather than a social relation
In Parsonian systems theory, money appears as a representation of purchasing power, the capacity to
control the exchange of goods. It also has the special social function of conferring prestige, and thus acts
as a mediator between ‘detailed symbols and a broader symbolization’
money develops, as in Smith, through the growth of the division of labor, which demands an abstract
representation of economic value so as to make the expansion of exchange possible.
> Editor's note: What are the right avenues to take pro-population arguments where human capital or
labor is guaranteed to create wealth and well being for the economy and money. Yes, money does grow
through the division of labor of more human beings to accomplish an arbitrary goal based on expected
correlated outcomes in production which bring returns to compensate that arbitrary population. Yet this
isn't guaranteed; even basic labor let alone contemporary financial instruments are subject to error and
exploitative manipulation which can result in crisis.
