Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

io9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#111

Post by ekianjo »

int_19h wrote: post #96
mercurial wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically the Russians weren't fighting to keep the Nazis from invading, but were focused on a counter-invasion. The thesis of Icebreaker [1], a controversial history book by an ex-GRU officer, is that Stalin was planning an invasion of Germany right when Operation Barbarossa happened. However, his interpretation is disputed by most historians. What is certain is that the Red Army was caught with its pants down and…

> You'll also note that Germans and Japanese troops fought with particular determination even when it became clear that defeat was the only possible outcome. I actually recall reading regarding Germans that there was a very peculiar distortion of perception there when even during late 1944 and early 1945, with Soviet armies literally at the door, a lot of people genuinely still believed that a victory (at that point…

I'm not so sure about that. When cities like Dresden were bombed day and night and destroyed to the ground, it'd be very hard to believe Victory or Peace is at hand. Maybe people living in Berlin had that perception, but I would be very surprised if that was a general sentiment in Germany.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#112

Post by Roboprog »

mistercow wrote: post #63

Another hypothesis, which is probably mostly wrong but still extremely interesting, is that put forth by Julian Jaynes: that the Incas, and most other early peoples, were not conscious (by Jaynes' very specific definition of "conscious"), but instead were unconscious agents guided by hallucinations, and that attempts to reason about them with modern models of volition and awareness are doomed. See: http://en.wikipedi…

Hey, savage, wanna try some Snow Crash?

(see one of the plot elements from the book)

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#113

Post by seanmcdirmid »

IsThisObvious wrote: post #79
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya: free to go but free to starve isn't much of a choice. Outright slavery isn't necessary.

How is paying me money any different if my only option if I quit was live on the streets and starve?

Monopoly on means of survival is effective slavery. People in early agricultural societies didn't exactly have many choices.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#114

Post by mistercow »

Roboprog wrote: post #112
mistercow wrote: post #63

Another hypothesis, which is probably mostly wrong but still extremely interesting, is that put forth by Julian Jaynes: that the Incas, and most other early peoples, were not conscious (by Jaynes' very specific definition of "conscious"), but instead were unconscious agents guided by hallucinations, and that attempts to reason about them with modern models of volition and awareness are doomed. See: http://en.wikipedi…

Hey, savage, wanna try some Snow Crash? (see one of the plot elements from the book)

Yeah, apparently several of Stephenson's earlier books drew from Jaynes' work, although Snow Crash is the only one of them I've read.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#115

Post by dsizzle »

wpietri wrote: post #105
dsizzle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story of Atahualpa’s Ransom ( http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/theconquestofperu/p... ) -- the king offered a ransom of gold -- seems to cast doubt on the claim the Incans didn't have money.

Why's that? It's clear they recognized various things as valuable. And that the Spanish told them they wanted gold. But money is special: it's a unit by which all economic value is measured, and it's universally swappable for any other kind of value.

It's possible, in principle, that this "transaction" was the first of its kind in Inca civilization and only happened to involve gold because that's what the Spanish wanted. But since gold is the quintessential commodity currency and has much of its value tied to others' valuing it [1], I think the burden of proof is on the claim they didn't have money. (And that's even before considering this famous anecdote -- one of only a few available, about any aspect of Inca culture.) They don't even address it though.

[1] Unlike bartered goods or services, gold (like other good currencies) is readily divisible and transportable, transfers without any skill, and stores indefinitely. Unlike many commodities, gold is not valued primarily for its functional value (food can be eaten, cloth provides warmth, etc.)

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#116

Post by dusklight »

It is not clear to me from the article and from the brief googling I did, how they came to the conclusion that there was no trading class? What evidence did they use to prove this absence? It seems to me the ruling class of any society works by trading with each other, in promises if not in currency. I don't see how it could work any other way?

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#117

Post by dsizzle »

jdmichal wrote: post #103
dsizzle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story of Atahualpa’s Ransom ( http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/theconquestofperu/p... ) -- the king offered a ransom of gold -- seems to cast doubt on the claim the Incans didn't have money.

First, it depends on whether the gold was considered a currency. If it was just another good, then it's really just a bartering -- life for some good, which in this case happens to be gold. Second, that story is post-conquistador. It is in fact the Spanish who are demanding the gold and silver, which is of course what the Spanish used for currency. So it's really an observation on the Spanish, not the Incans.

It may be that the Inca never used gold as currency, but it would be hard to substantiate that claim, I would think. The reason the Spanish valued it as currency is not because of some quirk of the Spanish, however -- it's univerally a good currency (though not the best). Unlike bartered goods or services, gold is readily divisible and transportable, transfers without any skill, and stores indefinitely.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#118

Post by bobbydavid »

dsizzle wrote: post #117
jdmichal wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, it depends on whether the gold was considered a currency. If it was just another good, then it's really just a bartering -- life for some good, which in this case happens to be gold. Second, that story is post-conquistador. It is in fact the Spanish who are demanding the gold and silver, which is of course what the Spanish used for currency. So it's really an observation on the Spanish, not the Incans.

It may be that the Inca never used gold as currency, but it would be hard to substantiate that claim, I would think. The reason the Spanish valued it as currency is not because of some quirk of the Spanish, however -- it's univerally a good currency (though not the best). Unlike bartered goods or services, gold is readily divisible and transportable, transfers without any skill, and stores indefinitely.

Incidentally, so is salt.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#119

Post by wpietri »

dsizzle wrote: post #115
wpietri wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why's that? It's clear they recognized various things as valuable. And that the Spanish told them they wanted gold. But money is special: it's a unit by which all economic value is measured, and it's universally swappable for any other kind of value.

It's possible, in principle, that this "transaction" was the first of its kind in Inca civilization and only happened to involve gold because that's what the Spanish wanted. But since gold is the quintessential commodity currency and has much of its value tied to others' valuing it [1], I think the burden of proof is on the claim they didn't have money. (And that's even before considering this famous anecdote -- one…

I guess you're entitled to use whatever standard of proof you want. But "random guy on the internet doesn't like it" is not the kind of thing you should expect to persuade others. For me it certainly doesn't outweigh the opinion of professional scholars.

The reason we know Romans had money is that we still have some of their money. If they did have money and you're asserting it was gold, then it should be up to you to come up with some of their golden money. There are certainly plenty of other artifacts from the era.

Re: The greatest mystery of the Inca Empire was its strange economy (2012)

#120

Post by tanzam75 »

paganel wrote: post #55
zeteo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Workers were paid in wine and grain That's not pay, it's logistics. Even on the worst forced labor projects they're still usually feeding the prisoners.

Maybe just a little OT, but my grand-parens lived in an mountain valley somewhere in Eastern Europe and even though I was still a kid I remember that when they were bringing people in to help them with agricultural work (collecting hay etc) often times said people were not paid with money but instead with "days-worked". More exactly, once person A had worked for you for two days you had to pay back by working two day…

What you describe sounds a lot like the labor-day (trudoden) accounting system for collective farms in the Soviet Union. They actually did pay wages to the workers according to the number of labor-days worked. (Note: It wasn't literally one day -- harder tasks could earn more than one labor-day per day.)

If one farm needed some temporary labor, it would've been easier to trade labor-days with another farm than to settle in cash.

I don't know about other Soviet bloc countries, but I would not be surprised if they used a similar system. 25 years ago would've been towards the end of the Communist era, which would also explain why it was fading.

Post reply on HN