2 ms·
I don't think that's fair. The majority of the book is a straightforward history of money that doesn't accept received wisdom. Near the end, the author's more a
by pradn 7y ago
I don't think that's fair. The majority of the book is a straightforward history of money that doesn't accept received wisdom. Near the end, the author's more anarchist leanings color the narrative. The last two chapters are not as informative, but that doesn't mean one should discount the majority of the book.
A few takeaways I have from that book:
1) In rural/traditional societies, debt (measured and stored in people's heads) and other reciprocal social obligations were enough to run an economy. Simple example: you give your neighbor some grain when the harvest comes, and you neighbor repairs your tools the whole year long. The classic economy-textbook idea that we invented currency so we don't have to barter with the goods we produce has never been observed in history.
2) Governments induce the creation of currency. Any government can change the currency by requiring the repayment of taxes in that new currency. Often this is for the purposes of paying armies.
3) Traveling merchants need to use currency because they can't rely on social obligations at each place along where they travel. Money allows anonymity.
- JackFr 7y ago> The classic economy-textbook idea that we invented currency so we don't have to barter with the goods we produce has never been observed in history. http://icm.clsbe.lisboa.ucp.pt/docentes/url/jcn/ie2/0POWCamp.pdf http://icm.clsbe.lisboa.ucp.pt/docentes/url/jcn/ie2/0POWCamp... Cigarettes were the numeraire for all transactions for the sake of efficiency.
- sdenton4 7y agoThat's addressed in the book: the cigarette economy is aping an existing cash+capitalistic economy, and thus doesn't provide a template for the evolution of a monetary economy from scratch.
- JackFr 7y ago> I don't think that's fair. Maybe I suppose. I read the book, though I was pretty familiar with the material already. To me it seemed immediately he adopted a hectoring, moralizing tone that was quite unnecessary and distracting. From the outset, he seemed unable to see past the framework of political power structures, and because of that basically missed the point of modern financial capitalism.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]