When people play by the rules, money can work effectively. Obviously, there are those tempted to operate outside of the rules. Robbers, fighters and cheaters can attempt to gain economic advantage without providing commensurate economic value. These folks can wreak havoc on their societies and the money doesn't care.

Because money is essentially clean, we tend to underestimate its capacity for inflicting damage on innocent persons. Financial violence is viewed differently from physical violence, even though the consequences may be even more horrific. Lately we've been treated to scenes of fraud and manipulation. Their perpetrators don't look like bad people; their suits fit, their hair is nicely trimmed and they look as if they have showered recently. Yet they don't come any dirtier. What's worse, they came close to bringing the economic system to its knees. How much worse could they be? They have hurt millions.

Money distorts. Throw enough of it somewhere and almost anything can happen. The qualities that make it so handy for international trade are pure liabilities when it comes to funding terrorism, prompting bribery or destroying local businesses.

Sometimes, people only feel comfortable with money if they can insure it. But how much should that cost and how much can you risk? These questions were as relevant for merchants of the 15th century, as they sought protection against pirates, as it is today, when people want to insure against the calamities of Mother Nature, which, like the pirates, doesn't care what your money is worth to you.

But insurance only works if there is actually money to pay for those calamities. It's easy for an insurance company to cash its premium checks, but there's a problem if those insurers do not ask for enough, do not keep enough or otherwise lack integrity. Even as we speak, a little company known as AIG is unable to fund commitments it made to insure certain financial instruments. Throw the government into the mix, acting as fairy godmother to retrieve what people have lost, and we can get a real mess on our hands. (Fortunately for AIG, at least their bonus checks cashed.)

This is the corollary of a more important problem: Money often rewards people for deferring until later what they ought to be doing now-perhaps building up levees for hurricanes, filling potholes or investing in green energy projects. Instead, the wisdom is: "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

This takes us to a whole different issue-the one where spending is a lot more fun than saving. There are people who just can't keep a nickel in their jeans, come what may. Yet not all of them have the courtesy to die before their money runs out. Indeed, many have the audacity to live into old age without the means to pay for it. What does society owe those who fail to understand money's demands for a lifetime of stewardship?

Worse, we generally act as though money is singularly personal. In fact, the term "my money" is an oxymoron. Scrooge McDuck may amuse us with his money-filled swimming pool, but it would be a pointless use of the stuff in real life. Francis Bacon is credited with the observation that "Money is like muck, not good except it be spread." Money doesn't have value if we keep it in stacks. It has value only in our relationships with others.

Nonetheless, we may be asking too much of it. In 21st century America, all of our social systems function with money at their core. All of them. This is unprecedented. Whether we can sustain this remains to be seen.

Indeed, there are huge difficulties relying on money for social structure. The incentives are wrong. Worse, the social arena does not abide the "creative destruction" that serves industry so well. Social systems such as health care and education do not self-correct like buggy whip manufacturers. These systems involve unionized workers and suppliers who do not easily give up any of their livelihoods. Any attempts at meaningful change in systems meet virulent resistance. To the best of my knowledge, no society in the history of humankind has relied on money for as much of its social structure as we do.