Well yeah. If you trace it backwards, before fiat, what was commodity backed currency? What inherent value is there to gold and silver? Back then there was little industrial use, it was just useful as something to trade for other things.
So going back further, at it’s core, currency is just a middle man to bartering. Instead of trading the grain you labored to grow for shoes from the cobbler, when you don’t need shoes right now, you take gold/shells/beads knowing you can use them to trade for repairs to your plow from the blacksmith. Currency has always been a social construct, not inherent to the commodity.
This is actually one argument against the hoarding behavior of the ultra wealthy. It disrupts the natural economy and creates unhealthy power dynamics. The rich person can distort labor away from productive things healthy for future development of the society, say by using their vast wealth to pay a ton of farmers to build statues of the rich guy, until suddenly there’s famine because no one is growing food.
So going back further, at it’s core, currency is just a middle man to bartering. Instead of trading the grain you labored to grow for shoes from the cobbler, when you don’t need shoes right now, you take gold/shells/beads knowing you can use them to trade for repairs to your plow from the blacksmith. Currency has always been a social construct, not inherent to the commodity.
This is what David Graeber calls “The Myth of Barter” and has no basis in history or anthropology. Trade was happening for thousands of years before the first currency was invented in the 6th Century BC. There are other ways to arrange trade that don’t require currency as an exchange of value.
For example, if I were a barley farmer in ancient Mesopotamia and I wanted to get drunk before harvest, I could write an IOU for part of my barley harvest to the bar owner. Then, if he needed to buy something he could take my IOU and trade that for whatever it was. This IOU would go round and round the economy, but it also made them pretty unstable if the barley crop didn’t meet expectations.
If this is interesting to you I highly recommend the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years which goes into a lot of detail about many different economic systems that have existed.
Think the point is that alternative strategies were in play when the biggest, most overwhelming cities in the world were maybe 100k people, the world population was 1% of what it was today, and economic activity was relatively limited in what sorts of goods and services were for trade.
Currency came about because as the indirect bartering relationships became overly complex and the number of participants exploded.
Though the currency situation did set up a sort of ‘meta’ of gaming the numbers for sake of the numbers themselves, which grew out of control until breaking the gold standard. Of course it’s still out of control, but what we see is nothing compared to the instability of a gold standard currency trying to tackle current day human activity.
Well yeah. If you trace it backwards, before fiat, what was commodity backed currency? What inherent value is there to gold and silver? Back then there was little industrial use, it was just useful as something to trade for other things.
So going back further, at it’s core, currency is just a middle man to bartering. Instead of trading the grain you labored to grow for shoes from the cobbler, when you don’t need shoes right now, you take gold/shells/beads knowing you can use them to trade for repairs to your plow from the blacksmith. Currency has always been a social construct, not inherent to the commodity.
This is actually one argument against the hoarding behavior of the ultra wealthy. It disrupts the natural economy and creates unhealthy power dynamics. The rich person can distort labor away from productive things healthy for future development of the society, say by using their vast wealth to pay a ton of farmers to build statues of the rich guy, until suddenly there’s famine because no one is growing food.
This is what David Graeber calls “The Myth of Barter” and has no basis in history or anthropology. Trade was happening for thousands of years before the first currency was invented in the 6th Century BC. There are other ways to arrange trade that don’t require currency as an exchange of value.
For example, if I were a barley farmer in ancient Mesopotamia and I wanted to get drunk before harvest, I could write an IOU for part of my barley harvest to the bar owner. Then, if he needed to buy something he could take my IOU and trade that for whatever it was. This IOU would go round and round the economy, but it also made them pretty unstable if the barley crop didn’t meet expectations.
If this is interesting to you I highly recommend the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years which goes into a lot of detail about many different economic systems that have existed.
Think the point is that alternative strategies were in play when the biggest, most overwhelming cities in the world were maybe 100k people, the world population was 1% of what it was today, and economic activity was relatively limited in what sorts of goods and services were for trade.
Currency came about because as the indirect bartering relationships became overly complex and the number of participants exploded.
Though the currency situation did set up a sort of ‘meta’ of gaming the numbers for sake of the numbers themselves, which grew out of control until breaking the gold standard. Of course it’s still out of control, but what we see is nothing compared to the instability of a gold standard currency trying to tackle current day human activity.
IIRC it had a lot more to do with exerting central control on trade. That’s why going back to their invention coins had pictures of rulers on them.