Cashing in on two cents worth
April 21, 2003 | 12:00am
You can take your two cents and maybe buy something useful for your thoughts," Abraham Giddard once said to a business rival. Although ol’ Giddard’s days of banking during the late 19th century are long over (an old England era he had supposedly monopolized – but that’s another story), his quote still resonates just how much two cents is worth nowadays. And honestly speaking, two cents isn’t worth very much. In any currency.
Most brokers have already conceded that the peso has been damned to oblivion from the very beginning, fated to hover above the fifty mark for all eternity. As for the two cents, or rather two centavos, most Filipinos whether patrician or proletarian don’t even bother to count that far down. When counting loose change and breaking bills, if it ever gets to the decimal points, a shovel is usually a great help in trying to dig yourself out.
But in fairness (pardon the showbiz lingo), the term "two cents" has actually immortalized itself into the English language. Politicians, starlets, professionals and the plain masa have always had their two cents’ take on anything and everything, a treasure trove for truth and tsimis in our country. Hardly having any reference to its monetary value, the phrase "two cents" has been coined (no pun intended) to mean "a thought" or "a musing" of trivial or no value. A clichéd idiom by contemporary standards, but one that takes care not to fall very far from its literal meaning.
Two cents can’t get you anywhere (or anything) in the world. Even in America, two cents is the slim distance from nil to nothing. Though optimists would be more than willing to claim that having two cents is actually better than having nothing, the realists would be quick to point out that having two cents is nothing.
But then again, the world is getting ahead of itself in the race for financial accumulation. In the centuries long gone, when life was boring, droll and primitive – the age before the Internet, cars, instant coffee and same-sex relationships – money was unheard of. In the age where the contemporary rules of economics were simpler than most of the townsfolk who supposedly abided by them – two cents didn’t mean anything. Literally or figuratively.
There was bartering of course, where semi-civilized tribes traded by trying to put some verbally agreed upon value on their wares. The world was a plethora of estimates and guesstimates, not very far from sticking a wet finger into the wind and waiting for God to send you a price tag. But then again, social influence already had much sway with how much things had to cost. During those days it was always the tribesman with the bigger stick who got the last say – a tradition that’s still as alive today as it was then. Speak softly, but carry a big stick and all the tong in the country will pour like rain on one’s palm in exchange for some protection and a worry-free walk down the neighborhood street.
Just the same, life went on and people bartered. And bartered and bartered. Livestock was traded for tools, clothing for raw materials, spices for inventions, women for other women (which explains the eventual propagation of the species). But, of course, the lack of a good basis on the quality of products sparked more than few difficulties when it came to agreeing on what and how to barter.
A rather earlier yet awkward basis of measurement was weight, which didn’t prove to be too useful after primitives had the ingenious idea for putting up rocks for trade and still after the Association of Fat People of the Planet marched around the planet in a pitch for political correctness. The march had tectonic repercussions until only the tight-assed and deadma Anglo-Saxons were allowed to use pound for its coinage and currency.
Later, it became size, a basis that was also made obsolete after South American natives realized that they were being cheated out of their gold with overplump rats. Of course, this all led to measuring an object’s worth by its aesthetic beauty, which opened up a whole can of subjectivity, bringing everyone back to square one.
The first concepts of money settled in when a certain good became invaluable to a majority of societies. An individual would trade his belonging for that good, which he would then trade to another, then another, then another – not much unlike how money is circulated in now.
An earlier version of money was seen with Native American Indians in the early 1620s in forms of wampum or shells that were strung together. They bartered with the Pilgrims, which greeted them warm-heartedly, realizing that all they had to do was take short trips to the beach to restock their wallet. In any case, if things got desperate, the Pilgrims needed only to crack open a net full of oysters to stay in business. So the Pilgrims had a lot of seafood to eat, stringing together necklace upon necklace of shells to finally trade off the land right under the noses of the Indians. Somewhat like the first signs of imperialism if you will.
However, gold coins and paper money were first introduced by early European settlers. These settlers used English and French currency as well as Spanish pieces of eight in European colonies when it became too much of a burden to haul large quantities of produce merely for barter. Apparently, lugging around the weight of your wallet hardly seemed practical if you could get away with merely a buck and some copper – which they exactly intended to do.
Money soon became a societal staple, as most everyone would know. It might strike one as absurd to have an entire populace to rely on the circulation of printed paper and branded coin – but to the happy-hunters who have built their lives on the exchange of Aguinaldo and Mabini, it hardly seems like anything to feel absurd about. And to be timely, the hero of Easter was even betrayed for a lousy 30 pieces of silver – a worthless cent compared to all the riches that could be had in heaven. Money sucks but humanity needs it like oxygen in daily living.
Contemporary thinkers have come to the conclusion that the world’s material and financial dependency has caused some serious stratification within society and intermittent revolts while others blame money as the source of all evil in the world, Saddam included. The fight over money has caused wars and divided the continents between the haves and have-nots. On the other hand, money has succeeded in doing also the opposite. If there’s any one language the whole world understands – it’s the sweet sound of money. But then again, that’s only E-Male’s two cents compared to the caboodle of criticisms about cash in an increasingly cashless society.
Email E-Male at argee@justice.com
Most brokers have already conceded that the peso has been damned to oblivion from the very beginning, fated to hover above the fifty mark for all eternity. As for the two cents, or rather two centavos, most Filipinos whether patrician or proletarian don’t even bother to count that far down. When counting loose change and breaking bills, if it ever gets to the decimal points, a shovel is usually a great help in trying to dig yourself out.
But in fairness (pardon the showbiz lingo), the term "two cents" has actually immortalized itself into the English language. Politicians, starlets, professionals and the plain masa have always had their two cents’ take on anything and everything, a treasure trove for truth and tsimis in our country. Hardly having any reference to its monetary value, the phrase "two cents" has been coined (no pun intended) to mean "a thought" or "a musing" of trivial or no value. A clichéd idiom by contemporary standards, but one that takes care not to fall very far from its literal meaning.
Two cents can’t get you anywhere (or anything) in the world. Even in America, two cents is the slim distance from nil to nothing. Though optimists would be more than willing to claim that having two cents is actually better than having nothing, the realists would be quick to point out that having two cents is nothing.
But then again, the world is getting ahead of itself in the race for financial accumulation. In the centuries long gone, when life was boring, droll and primitive – the age before the Internet, cars, instant coffee and same-sex relationships – money was unheard of. In the age where the contemporary rules of economics were simpler than most of the townsfolk who supposedly abided by them – two cents didn’t mean anything. Literally or figuratively.
There was bartering of course, where semi-civilized tribes traded by trying to put some verbally agreed upon value on their wares. The world was a plethora of estimates and guesstimates, not very far from sticking a wet finger into the wind and waiting for God to send you a price tag. But then again, social influence already had much sway with how much things had to cost. During those days it was always the tribesman with the bigger stick who got the last say – a tradition that’s still as alive today as it was then. Speak softly, but carry a big stick and all the tong in the country will pour like rain on one’s palm in exchange for some protection and a worry-free walk down the neighborhood street.
Just the same, life went on and people bartered. And bartered and bartered. Livestock was traded for tools, clothing for raw materials, spices for inventions, women for other women (which explains the eventual propagation of the species). But, of course, the lack of a good basis on the quality of products sparked more than few difficulties when it came to agreeing on what and how to barter.
A rather earlier yet awkward basis of measurement was weight, which didn’t prove to be too useful after primitives had the ingenious idea for putting up rocks for trade and still after the Association of Fat People of the Planet marched around the planet in a pitch for political correctness. The march had tectonic repercussions until only the tight-assed and deadma Anglo-Saxons were allowed to use pound for its coinage and currency.
Later, it became size, a basis that was also made obsolete after South American natives realized that they were being cheated out of their gold with overplump rats. Of course, this all led to measuring an object’s worth by its aesthetic beauty, which opened up a whole can of subjectivity, bringing everyone back to square one.
The first concepts of money settled in when a certain good became invaluable to a majority of societies. An individual would trade his belonging for that good, which he would then trade to another, then another, then another – not much unlike how money is circulated in now.
An earlier version of money was seen with Native American Indians in the early 1620s in forms of wampum or shells that were strung together. They bartered with the Pilgrims, which greeted them warm-heartedly, realizing that all they had to do was take short trips to the beach to restock their wallet. In any case, if things got desperate, the Pilgrims needed only to crack open a net full of oysters to stay in business. So the Pilgrims had a lot of seafood to eat, stringing together necklace upon necklace of shells to finally trade off the land right under the noses of the Indians. Somewhat like the first signs of imperialism if you will.
However, gold coins and paper money were first introduced by early European settlers. These settlers used English and French currency as well as Spanish pieces of eight in European colonies when it became too much of a burden to haul large quantities of produce merely for barter. Apparently, lugging around the weight of your wallet hardly seemed practical if you could get away with merely a buck and some copper – which they exactly intended to do.
Money soon became a societal staple, as most everyone would know. It might strike one as absurd to have an entire populace to rely on the circulation of printed paper and branded coin – but to the happy-hunters who have built their lives on the exchange of Aguinaldo and Mabini, it hardly seems like anything to feel absurd about. And to be timely, the hero of Easter was even betrayed for a lousy 30 pieces of silver – a worthless cent compared to all the riches that could be had in heaven. Money sucks but humanity needs it like oxygen in daily living.
Contemporary thinkers have come to the conclusion that the world’s material and financial dependency has caused some serious stratification within society and intermittent revolts while others blame money as the source of all evil in the world, Saddam included. The fight over money has caused wars and divided the continents between the haves and have-nots. On the other hand, money has succeeded in doing also the opposite. If there’s any one language the whole world understands – it’s the sweet sound of money. But then again, that’s only E-Male’s two cents compared to the caboodle of criticisms about cash in an increasingly cashless society.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
