3 ms·

I’m happy to hear criticism and to learn from that, but I wrote this myself. Took quite a while. Re: why, I don’t think most people understand the very basics

I’m happy to hear criticism and to learn from that, but I wrote this myself. Took quite a while. Re: why, I don’t think most people understand the very basics of the global economy in mechanical terms, and this was my attempt to explain those mechanics. I wanted the various pieces of the system to be motivated by understandable problems, hence the fable-like story. I now see some folks were triggered by this stylized approach. Which is a pity. I think the simple setup is worth the payoff. My explanation of money creation, for example, matches the Bank of England’s whitepaper, and I am especially pleased with how the idea of a reserve currency both develops naturally and rhymes with earlier ideas lower in the hierarchy.

rdsubhas 13d ago
Your article was well worth the read. Thank you for that. It's merely a HN trend where lazy people who can't read an article bad-mouth it as AI. You'll find the lazy AI comment in every article's top first or second comment now. Don't bother justifying yourself, keep it up and keep writing.
jasonwatkinspdx 13d ago
I'd suggest reading about David Graeber and the myth of bartering.
- throwaway_7274 13d ago
  I'm sure Graeber is right about the ahistoricity of the orthodox just-so story of money, but I've always wondered if perhaps he misread the kind of claim that story is actually making. What if economists don't really intend to make a factual historical claim? What if it's more like the principle of virtual work, if you take the analogy? What if it's saying, look, here are two possible configurations of the world: one with barter and one with monetary exchange. One of these configurations is "more stable" than the other. That's a reasonable explanation for "why" we use money, if you read "why" in a non-causal way. Or maybe economists are straightforwardly careless historians. I don't know!
aorloff 13d ago
Try reading Debt : the first 5000 years Money is about trust, not about the problems of bartering
- akoboldfrying 13d ago
  You mean like he already emphasises in TFA at various points, including the conclusion?
hypfer 13d ago
I wouldn't say that it's the stylized approach tbh, but rather the lack of it? Not to attack you, but it reads like a sudden unexpected glossary section. For which there is a place in the world, but only if it is expected (hence the opener). If the goal was to have an explainer for people about stuff that most get wrong, then I think an opener alone would not be enough, though. For that, it's probably far too densely written. It could also use some illustrations for that (albeit that's optional. Engaging textbooks also do well without). Truth be told, it does to me read more like an intellectual achievement you're proud of and not like a piece to in any way serve an audience. Then again, if that was to be the goal, I agree that the fundamentals would be there; just waiting to be shuffled around a bit and be embedded into a context that pulls the reader's brain along the path you want them to follow.
JimTheMan 13d ago
I would make the argument that debt came first. Favours in between people, prior to the invention of currency.

rdsubhas 13d ago

Your article was well worth the read. Thank you for that. It's merely a HN trend where lazy people who can't read an article bad-mouth it as AI. You'll find the lazy AI comment in every article's top first or second comment now. Don't bother justifying yourself, keep it up and keep writing.

jasonwatkinspdx 13d ago

I'd suggest reading about David Graeber and the myth of bartering.

throwaway_7274 13d ago
I'm sure Graeber is right about the ahistoricity of the orthodox just-so story of money, but I've always wondered if perhaps he misread the kind of claim that story is actually making. What if economists don't really intend to make a factual historical claim? What if it's more like the principle of virtual work, if you take the analogy? What if it's saying, look, here are two possible configurations of the world: one with barter and one with monetary exchange. One of these configurations is "more stable" than the other. That's a reasonable explanation for "why" we use money, if you read "why" in a non-causal way. Or maybe economists are straightforwardly careless historians. I don't know!

aorloff 13d ago

Try reading Debt : the first 5000 years Money is about trust, not about the problems of bartering

akoboldfrying 13d ago
You mean like he already emphasises in TFA at various points, including the conclusion?

hypfer 13d ago

I wouldn't say that it's the stylized approach tbh, but rather the lack of it? Not to attack you, but it reads like a sudden unexpected glossary section. For which there is a place in the world, but only if it is expected (hence the opener). If the goal was to have an explainer for people about stuff that most get wrong, then I think an opener alone would not be enough, though. For that, it's probably far too densely written. It could also use some illustrations for that (albeit that's optional. Engaging textbooks also do well without). Truth be told, it does to me read more like an intellectual achievement you're proud of and not like a piece to in any way serve an audience. Then again, if that was to be the goal, I agree that the fundamentals would be there; just waiting to be shuffled around a bit and be embedded into a context that pulls the reader's brain along the path you want them to follow.

JimTheMan 13d ago

I would make the argument that debt came first. Favours in between people, prior to the invention of currency.