Given that in reality, two economies are being fostered and grown under the auspices of any one currency, one of legitimate and real business that is both a help and blessing to the people and another which seeks to expand money for its own sake and define all economies as if the mere expansion of money in immoral areas which are a detriment to the people was legitimate simply because the one currency is universally recognized within its boundaries and "spends the same" no matter where it comes from or how it was gotten, how can money be defined in such a way as to automatically limit its power/efficacy/recognition, and thus its use within legitimate/moral boundaries? As well, how can the use of money/customs-of-exchange be changed to support the new definition as supporting law enforcement of the economy of a moral society?

This article is an initial inquiry into the area of interest of customs of monetary exchange between individuals. ( Understanding that if the laws already on the books were enforced, we would have no need to be making this inquiry; that what has happened is the ancient definition of money that is the current foundation of commerce ( not to mention the common sense/best honesty of most) has successfully usurped morality and law enforcement as the premier common sense as a de facto definition of power. This has happened in concert with a meta deception over the whole of man that deceives man he has free will. Those two deceptions must work hand in hand or both fail. But each has to be addressed as to what they fundamentally are, not simply the problems that arise because they exist.)

-------------------------

Area of interest: customs of exchange.

Implied absolute price plainly declared versus bargaining for every transaction.

In some societies it is expected that in most commercial transactions, a bargaining process must accompany almost every purchase. In those situations, the price is never implied to be absolute but is fluid per customer and the price each customer pays can vary wildly for the same merchandise quite beyond any issues of identical quality or quantity of merchandise. There are also certain functional ceremonies ( drinking chai/tea for instance in Turkey or the Middle East ) that are expected to accompany the bargaining process that are seen as social issues in themselves that are expected and understood ( or mis-understood) to be a slight when refused.

A lengthy social process that addresses more than simply price/money has advantages in slowing down the number of transactions accomplishable per opportunity to shop as well as fostering interpersonal relations as a whole as well as what appears to be at least an attempt to detract from the mere exchange of money as the premiere reason for two persons or groups meeting at all as quite rightly exalting human beings over money and instilling that as a social custom as a genuine blessing on the people the people may or may not understand. One particular advantage of slowing the number of transactions accomplishable per the opportunity to shop is not related directly to money/price or even the merchandise or personal communication skills learned through the process. It is simply that the lie of choice has less opportunity to take hold ( the lie of free will is not fostered AS FAST as compared to implied absolute price ( price tag the same for everyone on the merchandise) in that a flight to mere speed and efficiency of transaction that can be a by-product of implied absolute price with no bargaining in every way simply causes those who are engaged in it to shop for simply the sake of enjoying a feeling of personal power as choice as a product of the meta lie of free will they have as a result of being encapsulated in non-creating speech. Money and economics is never actually divorced from total reality and the total creature that human beings are.) Those societies in the later stages of the lie of free will tend to be more lawless, less law enforcing, violent, faster to violence and faster to immorality simply as a worship of choice itself for its own sake as a supposed proof of personal power within the common lie. Speed and efficiency of transaction for its own sake as mere proof of "more economics going on faster" speeds that process to decay.

Disadvantages of long-process bargaining for merchandise have to do with the intricacies of that process: does the buyer have the time to go through the process per item that is needed? is the seller lying so that the buyer ( or is the buyer lying..) cannot honesty know "why" the price needs to be what it is despite the fact the tea is superior in his shop? ( Notice that both systems, (implied absolute price and the bargaining process) depend on and foster the lie of free will as a foundation for the buying process. This points to an underlying definition/understanding of what money is that supports the lie of free will and that other issues are effecting the total creatures involved in buying and selling. The total creature doesn't stop being the total creature for or 'per' any particular activity ( other than new birth in Jesus Christ, which is a genuine change of being as becoming an outright different creature, with a new spirit, new heart and saved soul because of change of being and the blood of Jesus Christ . But for the present discussion, it is assumed we are speaking of limiting where money can go and be a "power" among a populace of those deceived they have free will and based on that deception..other issues caused by it.).)

As well, in long process bargaining societies, the origin of the merchandise is rarely questioned and thus tends to support more openly and readily a combination of true moral economy and immoral economy precisely because of the denigration of the money itself with regard to interpersonal relationships. What is seen as more important is the "we talked and understood each other and happened to exchange some money and goods in the process" --as an ACTUAL outlook on life. Where those goods come from or whether they are legitimate has little to do with "that kind of morality". Thus those societies have a well deserved reputation for being shops for all kinds of thieves who have a "morality" among themselves not extended to outsiders. Thus, in defense of their own "morality" as ( falsely) idealizing it they would quote:

Proverbs 20:15 There is gold, and a multitude of rubies; but the lips of knowledge are a precious Jewel.

...as they exchanged for gold and jewels.

Advantages of implied absolute price with no bargaining are that all those who shop have more time to get more accomplished in skipping what would otherwise be a lengthy process. As well, no one feels cheated as they all know they are paying the same price for the same quality and quantity of merchandise in most cases. Yet even in societies who prefer what some might call quiet price tags over speech, emotion, mannerisms and tea, some bargaining does commonly take place and laws to allow for return of merchandise, etc. exist that in bargaining societies is not as well established as justice. Lemon laws, etc. ( Most purchases in bargaining centric societies is understood to be "as is". Warranties on small items are a distinctly Western innovation, though in ancient times, warranties on houses, indispensable agricultural livestock, etc. were enforcible via the death penalty in bargaining societies as penalties for lying/deception. )

Disadvantages of implied absolute price are the implied exaltation of money and economy over the worth of the individual and relationships in an impersonal exchange . Some are even made to feel that they are being used as a functional slave audience of the "personal power" of others of those deceived they have free will even in small purchases; every purchase is an opportunity for some to literally "make big deal that they have money at all" with the collection of merchandise as mere trophies of past encounters. The lack of bargaining and the lack of ability to refuse to sell on the basis of the prospective buyer violating established customs and norms of interpersonal relationships would alleviate some of the worst effects and cases.

A mix of the two approaches would be desirable in a new definition of money as part of the use of that money. But what is that most "perfect" balance? A new definition of money advantageous to a moral society would undercut the fostering of the lie of free will, the exaltation of money over people and the exchange of money seen as a functional ego trip for its own sake.

Proverbs 20:14 Bad! bad! saith the buyer; but when he is gone his way, then he boasteth.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

--