3 ms·

Money in a broad sense is as old as anatomically modern humans, so, no. 80,000 year old grave goods have been discovered, consisting of shells of a consistent

Money in a broad sense is as old as anatomically modern humans, so, no. 80,000 year old grave goods have been discovered, consisting of shells of a consistent size, with holes drilled in them, a few hundred kilometers from the ocean. We know from ethnography of societies which existed until very recently that these collectibles served the same purpose as money. A good complement to Graeber's book is the work of Nick Szabo, I would start here: https://fermatslibrary.com/s/shelling-out-the-origins-of-money https://fermatslibrary.com/s/shelling-out-the-origins-of-mon... You can find most of the rest of his writing on the subject on his blog: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com http://unenumerated.blogspot.com

mikem170 5y ago
But the first source you quoted, the Atlantic article [0], quotes Graeber describing economies which don't depend on money or barter: > Communities of Iroquois Native Americans, for instance, stockpiled their goods in longhouses. Female councils then allocated the goods, explains Graeber. Other indigenous communities relied on “gift economies,” which went something like this: If you were a baker who needed meat, you didn’t offer your bagels for the butcher’s steaks. Instead, you got your wife to hint to the butcher’s wife that you two were low on iron, and she’d say something like “Oh really? Have a hamburger, we’ve got plenty!” Down the line, the butcher might want a birthday cake, or help moving to a new apartment, and you’d help him out. > On paper, this sounds a bit like delayed barter, but it bears some significant differences. For one thing, it’s much more efficient than Smith’s idea of a barter system, since it doesn’t depend on each person simultaneously having what the other wants. It’s also not tit for tat: No one ever assigns a specific value to the meat or cake or house-building labor, meaning debts can’t be transferred. > And, in a gift economy, exchange isn’t impersonal. My original reply in this thread was to mention that there have been functioning societies that don't use money. I was replying to a post that couldn't imagine such things. Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you brought up barter economies? I'll have to get back to your first Nick Szabo reference, it doesn't format readable in the browser I'm in front of at the moment (overlapping text). The second link, the blog post, seems to discuss the history of money as opposed to alternatives (like the Iroquois and gift economies mentioned above). [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-...
- zizee 5y ago
  This "gift economy" sounds someone trying to put a nobel spin on a debt based economy. I bet in many cases if someone got a reputation for not reciprocating "gifts" they'd soon find themselves not receiving anything. Hardly a gift. And why are people "hinting" at things in this economy, and why this is presented as something different from a direct request. How often have you come across people "hinting" at what they really want, when really they are demanding. Sounds like something out of a cliche mobster scene, "lovely tanks you have there Colonel, it would be a shame for anything to happen to them". > No one ever assigns a specific value to the meat or cake or house-building labor, meaning debts can’t be transferred. If the bakers wife were to "hint" to the butcher that their friend could do with some extra "iron", whilst simultaneously saying "did you enjoy those scones i gave you" (wink), then the debt is transferred. We can pretend that it wouldn't have happened, but people are people the world over. Some would be nice and help others because they like to help, others would use what leverage they have to get ahead in life. This gift based economy just sounds like a passive aggressive debt based economy, and it doesn't sound real.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    > This "gift economy" sounds someone trying to put a nobel spin on a debt based economy. I saw that same connection myself. Gifts, aka favors, aka "you owe me one", aka debts. > This gift based economy just sounds like a passive aggressive debt based economy, and it doesn't sound real. I brought this up initially (near the top of this thread) in response to someone who couldn't imagine an economy without without money. Such things have existed, as per anthropologists.
  - zizee 5y ago
    Weird, I thought i deleted this comment. I deleted it because I took the time to read the article mentioned above a bit closer. I believe it was arguing that gift-based economies were the origin of debt based economies (aka money) instead of money originating from bartering. Stupidly I had misunderstood what was being written, and then I attacked that imagined position by making the same argument as they were actually making :facepalm:
- 5y ago
bernawil 5y ago
The book (Debt, The First 5,000 Years) goes over this (IIRC it's in the Games with Sex and Death chapter). It says that these kinds of "weird money" examples like stone wheels in Micronesia, where not really used to trade for goods, but more or less to trade in social favors / honor systems. The early mesopotamian cilivilazations got debt and credit before there was coinage. Farmers bought goods on credit, the debt set in grain for example, to be payed on harvest season. Grain, would be as good as money since that's what you paid your taxes in. The whole region had a sophisticated credit culture and the effects of debt were pervasive. That's why the old testament has provisions against usury, the jubilee, etc.
- samatman 5y ago
  Debt, the First 5,000 Years is not the only text on this subject and it isn't canon. He's meaningfully wrong about a lot of things, and he's missing the 75,000 years prior to his story beginning completely. I strongly suggest reading some Szabo to fill that picture in. Shell money (ivory money sometimes) was a lot more money-like than Yap stones are.

mikem170 5y ago

But the first source you quoted, the Atlantic article [0], quotes Graeber describing economies which don't depend on money or barter: > Communities of Iroquois Native Americans, for instance, stockpiled their goods in longhouses. Female councils then allocated the goods, explains Graeber. Other indigenous communities relied on “gift economies,” which went something like this: If you were a baker who needed meat, you didn’t offer your bagels for the butcher’s steaks. Instead, you got your wife to hint to the butcher’s wife that you two were low on iron, and she’d say something like “Oh really? Have a hamburger, we’ve got plenty!” Down the line, the butcher might want a birthday cake, or help moving to a new apartment, and you’d help him out. > On paper, this sounds a bit like delayed barter, but it bears some significant differences. For one thing, it’s much more efficient than Smith’s idea of a barter system, since it doesn’t depend on each person simultaneously having what the other wants. It’s also not tit for tat: No one ever assigns a specific value to the meat or cake or house-building labor, meaning debts can’t be transferred. > And, in a gift economy, exchange isn’t impersonal. My original reply in this thread was to mention that there have been functioning societies that don't use money. I was replying to a post that couldn't imagine such things. Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you brought up barter economies? I'll have to get back to your first Nick Szabo reference, it doesn't format readable in the browser I'm in front of at the moment (overlapping text). The second link, the blog post, seems to discuss the history of money as opposed to alternatives (like the Iroquois and gift economies mentioned above). [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-...

zizee 5y ago
This "gift economy" sounds someone trying to put a nobel spin on a debt based economy. I bet in many cases if someone got a reputation for not reciprocating "gifts" they'd soon find themselves not receiving anything. Hardly a gift. And why are people "hinting" at things in this economy, and why this is presented as something different from a direct request. How often have you come across people "hinting" at what they really want, when really they are demanding. Sounds like something out of a cliche mobster scene, "lovely tanks you have there Colonel, it would be a shame for anything to happen to them". > No one ever assigns a specific value to the meat or cake or house-building labor, meaning debts can’t be transferred. If the bakers wife were to "hint" to the butcher that their friend could do with some extra "iron", whilst simultaneously saying "did you enjoy those scones i gave you" (wink), then the debt is transferred. We can pretend that it wouldn't have happened, but people are people the world over. Some would be nice and help others because they like to help, others would use what leverage they have to get ahead in life. This gift based economy just sounds like a passive aggressive debt based economy, and it doesn't sound real.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > This "gift economy" sounds someone trying to put a nobel spin on a debt based economy. I saw that same connection myself. Gifts, aka favors, aka "you owe me one", aka debts. > This gift based economy just sounds like a passive aggressive debt based economy, and it doesn't sound real. I brought this up initially (near the top of this thread) in response to someone who couldn't imagine an economy without without money. Such things have existed, as per anthropologists.
- zizee 5y ago
  Weird, I thought i deleted this comment. I deleted it because I took the time to read the article mentioned above a bit closer. I believe it was arguing that gift-based economies were the origin of debt based economies (aka money) instead of money originating from bartering. Stupidly I had misunderstood what was being written, and then I attacked that imagined position by making the same argument as they were actually making :facepalm:
5y ago

bernawil 5y ago

The book (Debt, The First 5,000 Years) goes over this (IIRC it's in the Games with Sex and Death chapter). It says that these kinds of "weird money" examples like stone wheels in Micronesia, where not really used to trade for goods, but more or less to trade in social favors / honor systems. The early mesopotamian cilivilazations got debt and credit before there was coinage. Farmers bought goods on credit, the debt set in grain for example, to be payed on harvest season. Grain, would be as good as money since that's what you paid your taxes in. The whole region had a sophisticated credit culture and the effects of debt were pervasive. That's why the old testament has provisions against usury, the jubilee, etc.

samatman 5y ago
Debt, the First 5,000 Years is not the only text on this subject and it isn't canon. He's meaningfully wrong about a lot of things, and he's missing the 75,000 years prior to his story beginning completely. I strongly suggest reading some Szabo to fill that picture in. Shell money (ivory money sometimes) was a lot more money-like than Yap stones are.