Isomorphisms of Land, Money and Kings

As noticed by Locke and later on by Keynes, one of the values of money, the value of use, given by the rate of interest, has the same nature as land, for land -once is rented- generates an income. Such an isomorphism gave the first modern metaphysical translation of land into money and vice versa. The high liquidity premiums attached in the past to the ownership of land and in modern times to money, show perfectly that the relation is invariantly isomorphic. During liminal times, i.e., economic crisis, the liquidity premium detaches itself from money and goes back to land (or gold). The isomorphism is an old inheritance from the myths of the King-God, the synthetical unity of his four personae, in this case of the Ensi (Landlord) and the Ugula (Merchant). However, Locke’s equivalence, by leaving outside the metaphysical component of economical valuation gave the ius naturale support to colonization which the manifest destiny politics lacked. The isomorphism land-money in relation to the mercantilist economic praxis produced a substantialization of both money and land. The monetary image of the land reduced British colonization to a monetary enterprise, giving it the strength of economic quantitative methods not at the disposal of any previous empire, but it also gave a quantitative image of monarchy, the beginning of its institutional limits in modern times. Kings had to bow under the universal law of reason, and at the same time, they were forced to fall back to their strongholds as representatives of the narrative of identity for the community, their Sangu (Spiritual Leader) persona. With their retreat from the Lugal (Military Leader) persona they increased the strength of the narrative of nation, a tale which soared above the economic actions with the supernatural scents inherited from the old idea of community expressed in the myths of the King-God.

The isomorphism land-money shows something interesting in relation to economic valuations. Neither land nor money are commodities, but narratives of valuation. The narrative of monarchy, linked to land (and to money through the isomorphism), is as stable as we want it to be, but only insofar as we believe in its transcendental dimension. We do not really need transcendentalism in modern politics, neither in the form of myths of King-Gods nor in the form of transcendental republics which fulfill some teleological ideal, either materialist or not. It would suffice with economical actions based on human laws, making the best of our finitude, intelligence and good will.