Has our bread become overbaked? An exploration into the true value of money and its meaning in our lives.
- Anika Karra
- Oct 17
- 7 min read
Introduction
Bread. Dead presidents. C-Notes. Akin to the countless pseudonyms we have for money, its use is universal. Money is ubiquitous and uniquely presents itself in everyone’s lives. Most of us use it every day, tapping Myki’s on PTV or hovering your phone over a portable POS machine. With the widespread shift towards cashless transactions, we need to ask ourselves one question: do we fundamentally understand how money works?
Money is often spoken of as if it were wealth itself. The original etymological definition of wealth was derived from ‘welth’, described as a “state or condition of happiness, well-being, joy.” It reflected a subjective experience by the individual, one that was holistic and inclined towards human welfare (StrongStoic, 2021). When we trace its history, the pragmatic use of money was designed to simplify the exchange of goods and services.
The Medici banks of Renaissance Florence exemplified the growing sophistication of money as an intermediary. By introducing credit, loans, and accounting innovations, they enabled commerce across Europe and laid the foundations for modern banking (De Roover, 1963). The Medici’s dominance was not without controversy, as critics accused them of leveraging political power and opaque dealings to entrench their financial control (Najemy, 2006).
From Means to End
Over time, money evolved beyond being a mere facilitator. Karl Marx distinguished between two forms of circulation:
C–M–C: Commodity exchanged for money, then for another commodity (trade for use).
M–C–M′: Money exchanged for a commodity, with the aim of obtaining more money (profit as the goal).
This second circuit represents the shift where accumulation of money becomes an end in itself (Marx, 1976). Georg Simmel (1978) later argued that modern society elevates money into an object of desire, detaching it from real production and fostering alienation. The pursuit of money for money itself shifted the cultural meaning of wealth from subsistence and productivity toward abstraction and accumulation.
The Rise of Fiat and Trust in Money
The 20th century marked a turning point. The Bretton Woods agreement (1944) initially pegged international currencies to gold through the U.S. dollar. However, in 1971, President Nixon ended gold convertibility, fully detaching money from material anchors (Eichengreen, 2019). Fiat money, backed only by state authority and collective trust, became the norm.
Historical crises underscore this fragility. In Weimar Germany (1923), hyperinflation destroyed savings as paper notes lost value daily (Kindleberger, 1984). Conversely, strong institutions and central banks have shown how trust can stabilise currencies, even when unmoored from commodities. Money’s value lies not in metal or paper, but in collective belief.
However, the most common term associated with money today is “making money,” showing how deeply this misrepresentation lies in our culture. Intrinsically, money cannot be made. It is a tool used to exchange or transfer goods and services. When a carpenter builds a house, he does not make chainsaws, he uses them to create the structure. The value lies in his skill and knowledge, not in the tool itself. Yet as wealth’s meaning has become synonymous with money, the lines between money’s purpose and its value have blurred (Graeber, 2011).
This blurring of purpose and value has not remained abstract. It seeps into everyday financial life, reshaping how individuals perceive success and stability.
The Trickle-On Effect of This New Perspective: Debt and “Fake Rich”
Humans evolved in tribal settings where survival depended on group hierarchies. Within these structures, roles determined access to food, resources, and social status. In modern economies, however, achievements and community standing are not always visible or easily conveyed. As a result, money has become one of the most immediate ways to signal status (Dunbar, 1996).
Contemporary consumer culture amplifies this shift. Studies suggest that the majority of individuals, up to 7 out of 10 in some surveys, feel pressure to “keep up appearances” and project financial security (Deloitte, 2023). This pressure manifests in conspicuous consumption: designer goods, luxury experiences, and curated social media lifestyles that often exceed actual means.
The outcome is a paradox. Status, once rooted in productive contributions to the group, is increasingly tied to visible displays of wealth. Those who cannot afford such displays may resort to debt, creating a cycle where financial insecurity is masked by the appearance of prosperity. Sociologists have described this as the “fake rich” phenomenon: the illusion of affluence sustained by credit, loans, and financial overextension (Frank, 2007).
The Future of Money and The Implications
Now we are seeing a shift towards alternative means of wealth building. The debate around Bitcoin highlights how our perception of money is still evolving. Traditional definitions hold that money must function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. Bitcoin, while innovative, falls short of these benchmarks. Its extreme volatility means that it cannot reliably serve as a medium of exchange or a unit of account. Prices are rarely quoted in Bitcoin, and its daily fluctuations can make yesterday’s purchase seem cheap or expensive today (Shafir et al., 1997). As such, many now treat Bitcoin less as a currency and more as a form of “digital gold,” valued as a speculative store of value rather than as practical money (Prasad, 2021).
The limits of Bitcoin have created space for alternatives such as stablecoins. These tokens are pegged to established currencies, usually the U.S. dollar, and are designed to hold steady value. They offer a way to transact on digital networks without the instability that undermines Bitcoin. Stablecoins already play a large role in crypto markets and cross-border payments, functioning almost like digital dollars. Their growth reveals a central truth: stability is the foundation of money’s usefulness in commerce (Federal Reserve Board, 2022).
At the same time, Bitcoin’s enduring appeal lies less in its practical use and more in what it represents. Born during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Bitcoin carries the promise of a system beyond state control. For some, holding or transacting in Bitcoin is an act of regaining autonomy from government and central banks. It symbolises resistance to inflation, political interference, and financial surveillance (Baur et al., 2018). This symbolic role explains why Bitcoin continues to attract users even when its volatility undermines its functionality.
Conclusion
overnments, however, have not stood still. Stablecoins are being drawn into regulatory frameworks, with proposals that issuers be supervised much like banks to guarantee consumer protection. Meanwhile, central banks are exploring their own digital currencies, known as CBDCs, to provide safe and state-backed alternatives to private digital money (BIS, 2022). These developments suggest that the future of money will not be defined by one system alone, but by a contested space where private innovation and public authority meet.
The implications are profound. If money is shifting further into the digital sphere, trust will remain the cornerstone. Whether it is Bitcoin, stablecoins, or CBDCs, the question will be less about the form money takes and more about whose systems people are willing to trust.
As such, the future of money will likely mirror the history of money itself: like an overbaked loaf, it may harden the crust of institutional power while the crumbs of autonomy still relies on the leavening of human confidence.
References
De Roover, R. (1963). The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank: 1397–1494. Harvard University Press.
Deloitte. (2023). Global consumer insights survey 2023. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/global-consumer-insights
Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press.
Eichengreen, B. (2019). Globalizing capital: A history of the international monetary system (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Frank, R. H. (2007). Falling behind: How rising inequality harms the middle class. University of California Press.
Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Melville House.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1984). A financial history of Western Europe. George Allen & Unwin.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: Volume I (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1867)
Najemy, J. M. (2006). A history of Florence 1200–1575. Blackwell Publishing.
Simmel, G. (1978). The philosophy of money (T. Bottomore & D. Frisby, Trans., 2nd ed.). Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1900)
StrongStoic. (2021). Reconciling wealth with stoic philosophy. Substack. https://strongstoic.substack.com/p/reconciling-wealth-with-stoic-philosophy
Baur, D. G., Hong, K., & Lee, A. D. (2018). Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets? Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 54, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2017.12.004
Bank for International Settlements. (2022). Annual economic report 2022: The future monetary system. https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2022e.htm
Federal Reserve Board. (2022). Money and payments: The U.S. dollar in the age of digital transformation. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/money-and-payments-discussion-paper.htm
Prasad, E. (2021). The future of money: How the digital revolution is transforming currencies and finance. Harvard University Press.
Shafir, E., Diamond, P., & Tversky, A. (1997). Money illusion. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 341–374. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555208
Disclaimer
Banking On Women provides economic, financial, and market-related research strictly for informational and educational purposes only. The content published by Banking On Women — including but not limited to articles, reports, analyses, forecasts, data visualisations, and commentary — does not constitute financial advice, investment recommendations, or an offer, solicitation, or endorsement to buy or sell any financial products or securities.
All information is derived from sources deemed reliable; however, Banking On Women does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or suitability of the information for any particular purpose. Information may be subject to change without notice, and Banking On Women makes no commitment to update any material.
Readers and users are strongly encouraged to conduct their own independent research and seek guidance from a qualified financial advisor or licensed professional before making any investment or financial decisions. Use of the information is at your own risk.
Banking On Women, its contributors, partners, affiliates, and representatives expressly disclaim any and all liability for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or any other loss or damage arising from any reliance placed on the information provided, whether due to error, omission, misstatement, or otherwise.
By accessing, using, or distributing any content published by Banking On Women, you acknowledge and agree to release and hold harmless Banking On Women from any and all legal claims, demands, liabilities, or disputes related to the use or interpretation of such information.
Comments