Topic: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 3. (Read 7078 times)

Really? Lol

Graeber proposes that money as a unit of account was invented the moment when the unquantifiable obligation "I owe you one" transformed into the quantifiable notion of "I owe you one unit of something". In this view, money emerged first as credit and only later aquired the functions of a medium of exchange and a store of value.

According to Graeber, when barter did occur, it was usually with strangers or to mitigate potential robbery by enemies.

David Kinley considers the theory of Aristotle to be flawed because the philosopher probably lacked sufficient understanding of the ways and practices of primitive communities, and so may have formed his opinion from personal experience and conjecture.

In his book Debt: The First 5000 Years, anthropologist David Graeber refutes the suggestion that money was invented to replace barter. The problem with this version of history, he suggests, is the lack of any supporting evidence. His research indicates that 'gift economies' were common, at least the beginnings of the first agrarian societies, when humans used elaborate credit systems. Graeber proposes that money as a unit of account was invented the moment when the unquantifiable obligation "I owe you one" transformed into the quantifiable notion of "I owe you one unit of something". In this view, money emerged first as credit and only later aquired the functions of a medium of exchange and a store of value.[7][8]

Contrary to the popular opinion, there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.[9] Instead, non-monetary societies operated largely along the principles of gift giving to form productive reciprocal obligations[9] and debt.[10][11] According to Graeber, when barter did occur, it was usually with strangers or to mitigate potential robbery by enemies.[12] Both parties have to agree to sell and buy each other commodities. this is known as double coincidence of wants. what a person desires to sell is exactly what the other wishes to buy. In a barter system where goods are directly exchanged without the use of money,double coincidence of wants is an essential feature.

it's a established fact that many aboriginal cultures did barter

Contrary to the popular opinion, there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.[9]

Ummmm I can assure you that almost none of my opinions are obtained from an Econ 101 textbook. I'm merely thinking inductively. If I were a caveman (which we know existed), and I had possession of some object (which we know occurred), I would sometimes trade it for other objects. Noticing other cavemen doing similar activities, I'd adjust my trades so as to acquire goods which could be traded easily to others.

Unless you can prove that my hypothesis there is wrong, then money was indeed formed naturally from barter. I'm not using a book to figure this out, I'm just using my brain.

Indeed you guys are talking about two different aspects of the economy. It's a fact that gift economies were actually very common within early communities. They did not barter amongst themselves, they simply shared everything by giving. In some societies there was actually competition on who gave the most. It was never "for free" however, there was always a non-written agreement that stated "you owe me something". So they were basically gift economies based on credit relations.

Between different communities or tribes barter was used. So was gifting. The size of the economy and the interconnections of different communities determine the importance of barter. As the economy gets bigger and involves many communities and individuals, barter becomes a much better system than a gift economy. Gift economy is quite natural in a family setup or in small communities but the importance of barter grows when the relationships of people in the economy change and become more complex.

It was never "for free" however, there was always a non-written agreement that stated "you owe me something". So they were basically gift economies based on credit relations.

Ummmm I can assure you that almost none of my opinions are obtained from an Econ 101 textbook. I'm merely thinking inductively. If I were a caveman (which we know existed), and I had possession of some object (which we know occurred), I would sometimes trade it for other objects. Noticing other cavemen doing similar activities, I'd adjust my trades so as to acquire goods which could be traded easily to others.

Unless you can prove that my hypothesis there is wrong, then money was indeed formed naturally from barter. I'm not using a book to figure this out, I'm just using my brain.

Yes, tollbooths are shitty only when they're statist, because there's no incentive to make them not stupid and not slow.  When you have voluntary customers, the last thing you want is to ruin their trip with delais.

Yes, tollbooths are shitty only when they're statist, because there's no incentive to make them not stupid and not slow.  When you have voluntary customers, the last thing you want is to ruin their trip with delais.

And before you say, "but tolls are so obnoxious!" you should know that, once again, private industry solves that problem via either pre-paid subscription models or RFID drive through tolls. In Dubai, the "toll booths" are just small structures that cross over the freeway. They scan a sticker in your car window when you drive underneath at 80 miles per hour. Easy.

This is a fantasy. A widespread fantasy which is talk in every economics 101 book, but a fantasy nonetheless. Economies have not historically been built to facilitate value exchange, but for other reasons, incomprehensible to economists. The problem arises because we have taken our economics and worked backwards - whereas what was needed was a comprehensive look at what actually took place (and is taking place today in primitive tribes around the world) in order to understand how money was created.

This is a fantasy. A widespread fantasy which is talk in every economics 101 book, but a fantasy nonetheless. Economies have not historically been built to facilitate value exchange, but for other reasons, incomprehensible to economists. The problem arises because we have taken our economics and worked backwards - whereas what was needed was a comprehensive look at what actually took place (and is taking place today in primitive tribes around the world) in order to understand how money was created.

Heheheh the fact that you cite a book which reviews the past 5,000 years betrays a misunderstanding of money, which is much older than that. We are not talking about round metal coins here. "Money" was deerskins and seashells long before coins existed, and long before any of the more advanced financial instruments examined by Graeber.

It's you who is arguing with history. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that 50,000 years ago cavemen were exchanging one good for another (barter). You agree, right? During this barter, a smart caveman would realize that if he traded not just for things he personally wanted, but things which others might want, then he could get more for his efforts. The first time a caveman realized this, and traded his meat for the fur which he knew another valued, money was discovered. As other cavemen realize that it's always easy to trade a fur to someone else, they begin using furs as a medium of exchange. This is money. The world did not fundamentally change when these first cavemen started behaving this way, there was no point in history when mankind shifted from "barter" to "money." It's a progressive, natural process of marginally favoring certain goods over others which leads to one or several goods tending to become used as money.

Money is thus inseparable from barter. Stated differently, we're all still bartering every day, and the item we prefer to barter for is now called Federal Reserve Notes, at least here in the US.

Money is thus inseparable from barter.

Don't argue with me, argue with David Graeber and history.

If you arent taxed how do you think all those highways and roads and thousands of other things are paid for? There is no centralization we see scams all the time and there is nothing you can do about it. Your computer gets hacked you are done. Dotn care how many backs up you have it takes a matter of seconds to empty your wallet once its broken in to and you will not be reimbursed by anyone. I can go on and on. Mostly the arguments why bitcoin is superior are just lousy points aka quick transaction times and low fees, yawn.

I don't have to do either.  history is already on my side, just not in Graeber's mind.  You made this reference, it's up to you to argue that it's correct.  I don't personally care what you believe, but to just say "Graeber says this" is committing the 'appeal to authority' falacy using someone I do't even view as a an authority on the matter.