What is money - part deux

[doodle]

Interesting tidbit here....listening to David Graeber interview. Apparently anthropologists have found that gold and silver coinage really didnt begin to come into widespread use until kingdoms began to form and local leaders needed to pay soldiers. Prior to armies, people tended to transact using a system of credit where debts were settled every year or so...sometimes in a rather informal communal way. Because people knew each other and saw one another on a daily basis conducting business this way didn't pose too much of a problem. However, soldiers were very often hired itenerant mercenaries or heavily armed and rowdy both of which made merchants or local business owners reluctant to extend them credit. Because of this kings or local leaders would create stamped coins to pay the soldiers with.

So, it seems metal coins came into being in order facilitate the raising of armies (violence) and were minted and distributed by kings (powerful elite).

Seems like the story of gold being the money of peace and freedom is pretty far from the actual historical record.

[doodle]

By the way...here is interview I'm drawing from:http://youtu.be/zSnReXI4gKk

[Gumby]

Interesting. If I remember correctly, I believe he argues that the Anthropological research of the earliest money often contradicts the bedtime stories that economic textbooks tend to tell.

[Libertarian666]

Interesting tidbit here....listening to David Graeber interview. Apparently anthropologists have found that gold and silver coinage really didnt begin to come into widespread use until kingdoms began to form and local leaders needed to pay soldiers. Prior to armies, people tended to transact using a system of credit where debts were settled every year or so...sometimes in a rather informal communal way. Because people knew each other and saw one another on a daily basis conducting business this way didn't pose too much of a problem. However, soldiers were very often hired itenerant mercenaries or heavily armed and rowdy both of which made merchants or local business owners reluctant to extend them credit. Because of this kings or local leaders would create stamped coins to pay the soldiers with.

So, it seems metal coins came into being in order facilitate the raising of armies (violence) and were minted and distributed by kings (powerful elite).

Seems like the story of gold being the money of peace and freedom is pretty far from the actual historical record.

Governments came into being in order to facilitate violence by the elite.
Seems like the story of government being the bringer of peace and freedom is pretty far from the actual historical record.

[doodle]

Interesting. If I remember correctly, I believe he argues that the Anthropological research of the earliest money often contradicts the bedtime stories that economic textbooks tend to tell.

Yes, he argues that traditional story (Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations for example) says 1. barter 2. currency 3. credit. The reality that anthropologists have found is that credit came first.

Interesting tidbit here....listening to David Graeber interview. Apparently anthropologists have found that gold and silver coinage really didnt begin to come into widespread use until kingdoms began to form and local leaders needed to pay soldiers. Prior to armies, people tended to transact using a system of credit where debts were settled every year or so...sometimes in a rather informal communal way. Because people knew each other and saw one another on a daily basis conducting business this way didn't pose too much of a problem. However, soldiers were very often hired itenerant mercenaries or heavily armed and rowdy both of which made merchants or local business owners reluctant to extend them credit. Because of this kings or local leaders would create stamped coins to pay the soldiers with.

So, it seems metal coins came into being in order facilitate the raising of armies (violence) and were minted and distributed by kings (powerful elite).

Seems like the story of gold being the money of peace and freedom is pretty far from the actual historical record.

Governments came into being in order to facilitate violence by the elite.
Seems like the story of government being the bringer of peace and freedom is pretty far from the actual historical record.

Of course. And money was the means by which these violent kings and governments funded an army. The king would pay the soldiers in coins with the kings face stamped on it and then demand that their subjects repay such a coin back as a tax at the end of the year. This was a very good system for the kings. It allowed them to raise powerful armies for defense and expansion and the system of taxation forced the people to begin to create things to sell to the soldiers in order to earn coins. In other words, the system spurred economic activity.

Anthropologists have found again and again that money came into being concurrent with institutions of power. Prior to that, things tended to work on credit. Coins (gold or otherwise) with the kings head stamped on it was used to fund violence and was taxed in exactly the same manner as we do with fiat in out present system. In other words, money is a neutral medium. It is the desires of the humans that use it that makes the ends that it is put towards good or bad.

He makes a few more subtle arguments in the video about the inextricable link between money and institutional power and why they seem to always go together. So much for gold and silver being the money of freedom. It seems that historical evidence at least just doesn't bear that out. 

[doodle]

Oh, and to preempt the coming response of: "but at least gold and silver constrains the size of the army that any leader can fund"

Again, I would say look at the historical record. Just as today the United States will go around the globe fighting wars to keep secure access to oil open, back in the day empires and kings would fight wars and exploit and kill for access to gold and silver mines. When the conquistadors came over to the new world most were after new gold and silver resources and they killed and exploited millions of Native Americans in order to get it. Even later in our own country's history we see the government violating peoples rights because of gold such as in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hills_Gold_Rush

Prior to the Gold Rush, the Black Hills were used by Native Americans (primarily bands of Sioux but others also ranged through the area). The United States government recognized the Black Hills as belonging to the Sioux by the Treaty of Laramie in 1868. Despite being within Indian territory, and therefore off-limits, white Americans were increasingly interested in the gold-mining possibilities of the Black Hills.

Prospectors found gold in 1874 near present-day Custer, South Dakota, but the deposit turned out to be small. The large placer gold deposits of Deadwood Gulch were discovered in November 1875, and in 1876, thousands of gold-seekers flocked to the new town of Deadwood, although it was still within Indian land.[2]

[Libertarian666]

Then it's a good thing that paper money doesn't permit that sort of exploitation! I'm convinced now.

[Pointedstick]

For anyone reading along here, I highly recommend listening to the entire interview. Totally fascinating stuff. Really eye-opening.

[doodle]

Then it's a good thing that paper money doesn't permit that sort of exploitation! I'm convinced now.

Techno...it seems that your problem with government is really just a problem with human beings violent exploitative tendencies. Eliminating government doesn't eliminate those tendencies however. In fact, properly constrained...a government of laws can actually increase freedom and commerce.

The reality is that if two people have a dispute that is to be settled in any other way than violence, there must be a third party to arbitrate that dispute and enforce the decision. To that third party, we give the name government. In the case of a dispute between two farmers over a cow, a governmental system of laws and courts is preventing physical violence from erupting. 

[Kshartle]

The reality is that if two people have a dispute that is to be settled in any other way than violence, there must be a third party to arbitrate that dispute and enforce the decision.

You must have the most bizzare relationships if you can't resolve disputes non-violently without a third party enforcing the decision. Is that really what you're saying? I'm glad my world is nothing like this. I resolve disputs all the time with people with reason and negotiation and agreement and I can't think of when I've called in a third party to enforce it.

[doodle]

The reality is that if two people have a dispute that is to be settled in any other way than violence, there must be a third party to arbitrate that dispute and enforce the decision.

You must have the most bizzare relationships if you can't resolve disputes non-violently without a third party enforcing the decision. Is that really what you're saying? I'm glad my world is nothing like this. I resolve disputs all the time with people with reason and negotiation and agreement and I can't think of when I've called in a third party to enforce it.

That's a beautiful utopic dream, but it doesn't square with the violent reality on this earth. Look at drug cartels for example. Why don't they just settle their disputes peacefully over a cup of tea? It's because their only recourse is violence. If they had access to a court system and laws that were enforced by an even greater power (in a republic it is the power that society vests in an institution called government) then they would arbitrate their disputes in a court.

Im not against nonviolence. Im just saying that presently it isnt a reality on this earth. I would rather have the tools of violence vested in an institution that is somewhat organized by laws and constrained by a division of powers than being dealt out by capricious individual mafiosos who just happen to be the toughest guys in the community.

[Kshartle]

Consider the contract you have with taco bell when you buy a taco. You give them a buck, they give you a taco. The taco is bad, maybe rotten tomatoes.

It's easy to say "well, taco bell will replace it because otherwise health inspector, lawsuit, something crazy etc......."

The reality is they replace because they want to sell you and your friends and family tacos in the future. No third party needed.

This is the basis for virtually all dispute resolution, mutal benefit.

For those disputes where benefit would not be mutual, government is still not required, nor violence. An agreed upon third party arbitor may be called upon prior to or post dispute. They do not need to be a government and do not need to use force. If they are a market driven business they will still need to be complied with or the non-compliant party will find themselves labled a contract breaker. This will make it very tough for them and really discourage people from breaking contracts. If the third party is not reliably able to provide contract compliance they will fail in the marketplace and be replaced.

Government is absolutley lousy at dispute resolution because their method is force, kidnapping and cages. It's not effective. Unless you think the justice system works.

It's like anything else. A market solution solves the problem ten times better.

[Kshartle]

That's a beautiful utopic dream, but it doesn't square with the violent reality on this earth. Look at drug cartels for example. Why don't they just settle their disputes peacefully over a cup of tea? It's because their only recourse is violence. If they had access to a court system and laws that were enforced by an even greater power (in a republic it is the power that society vests in an institution called government) then they would arbitrate their disputes in a court.

I'll go you one further....if production and consumption of their products was not outlawed by manics with all the guns and dungeons in the world they would resolve problems like my taco bell example.

[Kshartle]

I would rather have the tools of violence vested in an institution that is somewhat organized by laws and constrained by a division of powers than being dealt out by capricious individual mafiosos who just happen to be the toughest guys in the community.

These tools take the form of depleted uranium that poisons huge swaths of land across the Earth causing all kinds of horrible defects in humans and killing millions and millions of innocents.

Thinking you can create an animal like this and keep it caged by writing a peice of paper....this is maddness to me.

[doodle]

Kshartle,

I don't know what your background is but humans are not economic automatons operating based on purely rational decision making processes like some deterministic physical particles.

Your little scenario is fine and dandy until that Taco Bell taco gives my first born son food poisoning and kills him. Of course, the Taco Bell operator disagrees that they are at fault. This is a situation that is much more difficult to solve through some informal third party mediation.

Anyways, look to history. You keep setting up governments and markets as mutually exclusive and antagonistic entities. Well, listen to this part of the interview where Graber discusses how they are in fact quite inextricably linked:( I cued it to the correct time) http://youtu.be/zSnReXI4gKk?t=19m45s

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

Your little scenario is fine and dandy until that Taco Bell taco gives my first born son food poisoning and kills him. Of course, the Taco Bell operator disagrees that they are at fault.

What is the government solution here?

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

Your little scenario is fine and dandy until that Taco Bell taco gives my first born son food poisoning and kills him. Of course, the Taco Bell operator disagrees that they are at fault.

What is the government solution here?

To have a legal framework to reimburse doodle for his loss that was the fault of Taco Bell.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

Your little scenario is fine and dandy until that Taco Bell taco gives my first born son food poisoning and kills him. Of course, the Taco Bell operator disagrees that they are at fault.

What is the government solution here?

To have a legal framework to reimburse doodle for his loss that was the fault of Taco Bell.

This is not a solution to the problem of the lost life.

He said "Your little scenario is fine and dandy until that Taco Bell taco gives my first born son food poisoning and kills him. Of course, the Taco Bell operator disagrees that they are at fault. This is a situation that is much more difficult to solve through some informal third party mediation."

The reimursement gives Doodle cash. The cash is taken from the owners of Taco Bell. What problem has this solved?

If you think the threat of losing cash in a lawsuit is what prevents Taco Bell from serving killer tacos.......I hope it's obvious this is not reality.

The government "solution" is not a solution. Does this make sense? We want good things in life, not bad things. We want bad things to not happen. Punishment of the offenders can make us feel good after the fact....but this is the best the government has to offer. And if by chance it ever offers more than that....I think it's very nearly certain a free-market non-violent conflict resolution offers more.

If you guys have any interest in offereing other scenarios I'd be happy to debate them. We will probably not convince each other (pessamisstic I know) but someone might find it interesting.

If not that's cool too. Maybe a new thread "Free market solutions to problems vs. Government" or something like that.

[doodle]

What is the government solution here?

To have a legal framework to reimburse doodle for his loss that was the fault of Taco Bell.

This is not a solution to the problem of the lost life.

He said "Your little scenario is fine and dandy until that Taco Bell taco gives my first born son food poisoning and kills him. Of course, the Taco Bell operator disagrees that they are at fault. This is a situation that is much more difficult to solve through some informal third party mediation."

The reimursement gives Doodle cash. The cash is taken from the owners of Taco Bell. What problem has this solved?

If you think the threat of losing cash in a lawsuit is what prevents Taco Bell from serving killer tacos.......I hope it's obvious this is not reality.

The government "solution" is not a solution. Does this make sense? We want good things in life, not bad things. We want bad things to not happen. Punishment of the offenders can make us feel good after the fact....but this is the best the government has to offer. And if by chance it ever offers more than that....I think it's very nearly certain a free-market non-violent conflict resolution offers more.

Kshartle, Im not disagreeing with you in terms of what the "ideal" way of solving disagreements is, Im just saying at our present state of evolution it isn't possible. Your vision is something to strive towards, but we have to operate within reality. Free markets require legal systems and private property to function. Both of those systems must be backed by force. Can you acknowledge that force automatically enters into the picture when you say that this land is yours and I say that it is mine?

[doodle]

The reimursement gives Doodle cash. The cash is taken from the owners of Taco Bell. What problem has this solved?

If I was depending on that newborn son supporting me during my old age, that cash has definitely solved one problem.

[Libertarian666]

See the thread on government vs. private solutions.

[Kshartle]

The reimursement gives Doodle cash. The cash is taken from the owners of Taco Bell. What problem has this solved?

If I was depending on that newborn son supporting me during my old age, that cash has definitely solved one problem.

touche......

Depending on the son.......this is an entirely different problem......

The cash certainly solves the problem that the lack of savings and everything else creates, but an insurance policy on the only hope for survival in old age is much better than hoping for a settlement in case of death.

Imagine the son died through no fault of anyone or someone without the means of say....a Taco Bell business?

[moda0306]

The reimursement gives Doodle cash. The cash is taken from the owners of Taco Bell. What problem has this solved?

If I was depending on that newborn son supporting me during my old age, that cash has definitely solved one problem.

touche......

Depending on the son.......this is an entirely different problem......

The cash certainly solves the problem that the lack of savings and everything else creates, but an insurance policy on the only hope for survival in old age is much better than hoping for a settlement in case of death.

Imagine the son died through no fault of anyone or someone without the means of say....a Taco Bell business?

Kshartle,

Absolutely life insurance is a much better tool for that.

But then the life insurance company inherits the right to sue Taco Bell.

Taco Bell wronged someone.  They have a very natural obligation to make up for that in some way.  They will behave better if they think their big mistakes will lose them more than just a customer.

[Kshartle]

But then the life insurance company inherits the right to sue Taco Bell.

Taco Bell wronged someone.  They have a very natural obligation to make up for that in some way.  They will behave better if they think their big mistakes will lose them more than just a customer.

That is the insurance company's problem to solve. They solve it by charging an appropriate premium for the insurance, not by hoping to avoid losses by winning lawsuits enforced by a third party through the threat of violence.

The notion that TB is likely to serve lower qualtiy, riskier death tacos because they cannot have a third party threaten them with force.....this is silly to me. I realize just because it seems silly to me this is not evidence that it is in fact silly.

Notwithstanding even without an institution of violence.....everyone will always be aware that their actions, if bad enough will possibly result in someone having a violent reaction.

I think you guys have made that last point for me a number of times.

I mean...if murder were legal....do you think it would be ok? Do you think it wouldn't have consequences? We don't need anyone to tell us murder is illegal. This is cover. They can say "I protect you from murder by making it illegal!, ohhh and by the way so is that peice of vegetation you have, come with me into a cage".

[Kshartle]

All this being said I'm going to see if they'll add a death taco to the menu.