4 ms·
You bring up a fascinating aspect of money which I like to contemplate about often. Money is the pure abstraction in the sense that it hides just about everyth
by vishnugupta 4y ago
You bring up a fascinating aspect of money which I like to contemplate about often.
Money is the pure abstraction in the sense that it hides just about everything that brought it into existence. If I look at two $100 bills they are exactly the same; theoretically and practically. And yet they couldn't possibly be similar, they could have originated in crimes, be parts of legitimate businesses, so on and so forth. But they still continue to exist as pure abstraction. One could get into all sorts of philosophical rabbit holes.
What sorts of arguments would have had at the cusp of using coins?
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y agoI think you'd find David Graeber's book Debt very interesting. There are a bunch of common assumptions about how money came into existence that simply aren't what happened based on the archeological record. Coinage came a lot later than basic debt ledgers, and it was largely an organizational hack by rulers to feed and house their armies. They'd mint coins with their face as seal or whatever, and would issue these to the soldiers as payment, while also requiring all citizens to pay a tax in those same coins. Suddenly everyone is figuring out how to give the soldiers what they want without you having to organize any of it directly.
- olalonde 4y agoYou didn't mention it explicitly so just in case you didn't know, what you are describing is called fungibility[0] and is indeed an important property of money. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility