Hello hello everybody!

I was just thinking about the different kinds of economic problems/questions we’ve learned throughout the term, and their respective “answers”. And then I wondered whether there were more schools of thought to consider…and obviously the answer is yes, because the world super complicated!

Other than the potlatch practice, I was curious as to whether there were other normative, cultural systems that could add to our economic topic. One that I thought of pertains to Islamic economics, due to a brief discussion I had with a friend a year ago. She mentioned the concept of ‘Riba’, which refers to interest. From what I understood from her explanation, it is illegal in Islam to take or receive it, due to its nature of fabrication. It is not “produced”, like salaries are. As a result, taking/receiving interest is morally wrong. It is unjust, and considered to be exploitative gains made from trade or business. She spoke about this in reference to her taking out loans, and actively seeking an Islamic lender in order to forego added interest.
Since Islam is a way of life, it has its own guide to an economic system. I definitely can’t say I fully understand “Islamic economics” because it is a super complex subject, but I thought Riba was especially interesting because it’s an economic concept which stems from a belief, but one which unlike faith in credit or currency. It instead comes from a different abstraction, and reflects morally on the parties who engage/do not engage with Riba. However, I also do believe that there are ways to “go around” the moral/economic restriction of Riba by essentially paying an upfront fee for a loan, instead of interest. As a result, it seems that the system of borrowing and lending just finds a different way to compensate the lender. Money always finds a way!

Just thought that might be interesting to think about. And of course, if anyone wants to add to this/explain the concept of Riba or “Islamic Economics” further, please do! Good luck with finals!

Hey everyone!

In light of us beginning Lanchester’s “Capital”, I thought I’d share this 2015 BBC documentary “Millionaire Basement Wars” I saw about a year ago.

I thought it was especially relevant to the prologue of “Capital” because it’s about the maximization of property value in the heart of London, one of the most expensive places to live in the world. Mega-basements are being built, much like along Pepys Road in the novel, for houses already valued for millions of pounds. The excavation additions, of course, only add more value. The areas covered by the documentary include Kensington and Chelsea, and covers the rapid growth of subterranean building along its streets. Much like how the houses in “Capital” are described to have had “become central actors in their own right” (12), “as if they had come alive, and had wishes and needs of their own” (13), the houses along Kensington and Chelsea are trophy asset purchases, and are significant enough to justify a documentary! They are definitely the main actors, here. While there is an attempt to regulate the number of excavations, there are, in short, constant trucks and construction along the narrows roads, and never-ending complaints from residents about the noise and disturbances. Applications for excavations are absolutely backed up. Though the main motive for the excavations is to further the property value (often doubling the original value) by adding things like cinemas, gyms, and waterfalls, it nevertheless seems ridiculous how peace and quiet in a residential neighbourhood has been exchanged for never-ending and excessive commodification! It really does seem like houses are the ones living on the streets, and not the residents.

Anyway, just thought this would be interesting to share! I would love to hear any further thoughts!

       Hello hello! Reading Tratner’s “Derrida’s Debt to Milton Friedman”, there were a couple passages which got me thinking about the postmodern aspects of Martin Amis’ Money: A Suicide Note.

       My first passage of Tratner’s discusses a shift from a nineteenth-century “morality of spending only what one had earned”, to a more consumerist economy (Tratner 794). In Amis’ Money, I think there is a strong relationship between overspending/indulgence and one’s morality. From where I’ve gotten so far in the book, this seems to be reinforced by examples of overspending: tabs being run up due to alcohol indulgence, and money needing to be borrowed due to gambling debts. I also thought that the novel’s cover, where the ribbon of “MONEY” is surrounded by images which imply the illicit, was also interesting. From what I understand, I think the cover is an example of Milton Friedman’s argument of how “money plays an important role in the economy precisely because it is a system for distributing signifiers which have no referent” (Tratner 798). The word “MONEY” doesn’t point precisely to any one meaning or object, as the cover proves. Nothing is fixed. As a result, the novel’s corresponding lack of concrete standards and conventionality in terms of plot also seems to allude to the postmodern, falling in line with a system which consists of blurred boundaries.

       My second passage of Tratner’s notes how “in the nineteenth century, every text began with production and with an account of the needs that production hoped to satisfy; in the twentieth, every text begins with demand, with desires” (Tratner 795). I noticed how Amis’ text opens with a suicide note on its very first page, playing an interesting dynamic between production and demand. The note states “In the planetary aggregate of all life, there are many more suicide notes than there are suicides” and how “It is the note and not the life that is cancelled out. Or the other way round. Or death” (Amis 6). So, does the text began with a production of a suicide note which traditionally fulfills the satisfaction of the individual who writes it and/or addresses, or a demand for a corresponding suicide? As one can “never tell…with suicide notes” (Amis 6), is this ambiguity another reinforcement of postmodernism, an example of deconstruction? I think it is!

So what does it mean when the title is Money: A Suicide Note?!! What’s the connection?

Any thoughts on this? 🙂