4 ms·
No, money is a means for states to procure things without needing to exercise violence at the point of procurement. It has a side benefit of providing a tool th
by hgomersall 4y ago
No, money is a means for states to procure things without needing to exercise violence at the point of procurement. It has a side benefit of providing a tool the rest of the economy can use to power itself. To your point, states are very good at imposing tax obligations when no money changes hands, which is all that is needed for money to be maintained.
- TapWaterBandit 4y agoMoney is crucial for giving us prices and without knowing prices the economy would be screwed. If we couldn't tell that it was cheaper to use renewable over fossil fuels or eat chicken over beef as two examples there could be big efficiency and allocation problems.
- hgomersall 4y agoSure, but that's the side effect of the state setting the value. It's definitely necessary, don't get me wrong, and in the absence of state money I daresay another solution would have been found.
- TapWaterBandit 4y agoThe existence of money preceded the state by a wide margin. There is also a long history of privately issued money that only ended recently (and considering crypto in some ways never ended).
- hgomersall 4y agoState issuance of money and the tax required to imbue it with value is merely a sufficient condition for money to exist. My original point is that as long as a states continue to exist, and continue to issue and tax money, money will continue to exist. Debating the history of money is besides the point (though I'd posit that in every case the money was used to a non-trivial extent, it bore some explicit value from a trustworthy authority, be that a state or a local warlord or a powerful corporation...).