4 ms·
The order of how money emerges is wrong and thus the premise that each step moves the trust higher in hierarchy is wrong. It didn’t necessarily come from bante
by DanielVZ 14d ago
The order of how money emerges is wrong and thus the premise that each step moves the trust higher in hierarchy is wrong.
It didn’t necessarily come from banter (see rai stones from yap island). Debt didn’t always come from currency (See Inca system of Reciprocity and Redistribution where there was no currency). Private Banks don’t always precede Central Banks (see Sumerian Temples).
I do agree with the argument that money is backed by trust. But I don’t think it’s inherently hierarchical. I think if anything, money and its diverse manifestations in currency are a complex graph where of course there are regions that exhibit hierarchical behavior (eg. Chilean bank backed by Chilean Central Bank that issues bonds and buys or sells US dollars). But for example I believe Crypto/Cigarrets in Prison/Silver/Gold/etc aren’t part of that hierarchical region.
- TacticalCoder 14d ago> But for example I believe Crypto/Cigarrets in Prison/Silver/Gold/etc aren’t part of that hierarchical region. Many early chinese kingdoms had coins as money and they were based on the rarity of the metal. And they began turning to shit when they started creating coins out of thin air, with hardly any rare metal in them: some kingdoms literally lost it all once they began hyper-inflating their currency by creating way too many coins (and at times there were so many worthless coins they couldn't even store them anymore). I think coins made of metal are definitely part of the hierarchy of money. And arguably Nixon "temporarily" ending the dollar's convertibility to gold in the early 1970s is an experiment for which we'll soon see the eventual result: https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/