Our default model has it that money is a symbol for wealth, for created-value-that-is-then-traded.
But if there are some people in your economy that are doing violence, and you trade with them, then the more money you accumulate, the more you are subsidizing violence. Having money means that you created value and traded that value for money, and some (perhaps large) fraction of that value supported (directly or indirectly) a mechanism that does violence to others.
Pretty close—the main reason I wouldn’t say it like that is that “created value” is a bit ambiguous here. The issue is really whether you can add up all the value created to get something like total value produced (a measure like GDP), which would be a desirable thing to increase in a pure loaves world, but definitely not in an arrows-and-shields world.
Ok. So your key point here is that GDP is not a good measure of “production”, or “human well being”, because its a measure that mixes together creative activity with destructive activity (including extortion).
I’m going to try to summarize, perhaps stupidly:
How far off am I?
Pretty close—the main reason I wouldn’t say it like that is that “created value” is a bit ambiguous here. The issue is really whether you can add up all the value created to get something like total value produced (a measure like GDP), which would be a desirable thing to increase in a pure loaves world, but definitely not in an arrows-and-shields world.
Ok. So your key point here is that GDP is not a good measure of “production”, or “human well being”, because its a measure that mixes together creative activity with destructive activity (including extortion).