Reading "Debt: The First 5,000 Years".

One take-away: the stories that (a) money evolved from barter and (b) credit evolved from money are both wrong.

Credit came first (invented by large organizations as a way of tracking resources) then money (which was, if I understand right, mainly used within and between said large organizations).

Barter is only used among people who are already familiar with money. Trade in non-monetary societies tends to be very ritualistic and just one or two steps away from combat; internally, resources are allocated in a way that sounds more like socialism (you need shoes? the council will get you some shoes from storage.)

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 4

Another takeaway:

Let's play a game.

I make a lot of playing pieces, some which I will give to anyone who can give me things I want.

In order to make you want to have some of my pieces, I will demand that you give me back a certain number of pieces every year. If you can't give me enough, I'll put you in prison.

The playing pieces are money, the yearly payment is a tax, and this is how rulers create money and markets... and acquire the necessary supplies to run their empires without doing the necessary work.

"Markets" exist only as a side-effect of taxation.

Modern economists pretend not to believe this (it's considered essentially a conspiracy theory), but their advice aligns with it completely.

Show thread

Lemme say that again, only shorter: "markets" only exist because of government coercion.

Tell that to your favorite free-market fan and let me know how it goes. ^.^

Show thread
@woozle I would be very skeptical of "only", but they certainly play a key role.

@clacke Well... "primarily", perhaps. But the evidence does suggest that markets, the larger economic sense, only happen when governments act to create them.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!