Live data from Hacker News

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

io9.com

141–150 of 153 posts

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

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucrats and the growth of bureaucracy.

Counterpoint: capitalists and the growth of inequality. I find it hard to believe that a group of people who act in complete self interest can or should efficiently and effectively distribute vital resources. See: oil, diamonds, and commodities in general.

"I find it hard to believe that a group of people who act in complete self interest can or should efficiently and effectively distribute vital resources."

1775 called, it wants its understanding of economics back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Spanish had grown up knowing that gold could be swapped into land and wine and women. Get a lot of it, go home, live the good life. I doubt it was more sophisticated than that. The evidence suggests that the Spanish didn't have an academic understanding of currency, because the influex of silver caused huge inflation in Spain and damaged their economy. > it's univerally a good currency It's not. Metals don't func…

The Spanish had grown up knowing that gold could be swapped into land and wine and women. Get a lot of it, go home, live the good life. I doubt it was more sophisticated than that.

Actually it really was. Spanish, Europeans, Asians, and perhaps other nations elsewhere, tried different methods of exchanging goods. In the beginning they would have exchanged good directly (salt for sheep), but they found this would be very hard because you could not readily divide certain goods and you had to buy significantly more or less of what you needed. Other forms of payments were introduced in different parts of the continents including salt, silk, and even nails in some regision, etc... Then came metal. It wasn't easy to divide, but soon enough they introduced small equally sized weighted metal. But as you can imagine the crooks would mixed different metals, which in the long run lead to coined money to certify authenticity. However Kings started to reduce the quantity of gold to repay debts they owed because it was not so much based on weight, but more so on "coin." There is more, but you would want to read the Origins of Wealth of Nations by A. Smith for more on the subject.

Gold seem to have been a good "currency," (but then again what do you mean by currency) and could have remain such, but the problem has always been the value it was based on and what you could have afforded with it. There layed the problem.

The above is what I understood from Adam's Smith Wealth of Nations, Book I, but I must admit I am still at my first read and perhaps by read 3 I will have a better understanding.

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

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Spanish had grown up knowing that gold could be swapped into land and wine and women. Get a lot of it, go home, live the good life. I doubt it was more sophisticated than that. The evidence suggests that the Spanish didn't have an academic understanding of currency, because the influex of silver caused huge inflation in Spain and damaged their economy. > it's univerally a good currency It's not. Metals don't func…

To be clear, I think gold is inferior as a currency compared to modern (fiat) money. I was comparing it to other goods-of-value (livestock, clothes, food, etc.)

I know very little about the Inca, and make no claim about them. I'm merely skeptical of the article's claims (which may very well be right).

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

#144

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.

The other major benefit is that it had no other use except as a medium of exchange (unlike grain, salt, and other commodities) and was easy to carry in decorative form (ie jewelry).

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

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally, so is salt.

It's a stretch to call it a universal currency. You don't see people in the high street quoted in units of salt.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_salt

It looks like a fairly universal currency: Roman soldiers were paid in it (at least, "salary" comes from the word for salt), as were soldiers in the American War of 1812. In Timbuktu they traded salt for slaves. It created cities and the Polish kingdom. It was taxed for hundreds of years in Europe.

These days salt is practically free, but when the only way to get it was from mining or by evaporating ocean water (neither very readily accessible in many parts), and unlike gold, you tended to consume it in preserving food, it was worth a bit more.

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

#146
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is labelled as communism doesn't always fail, see China, Venezuela, Cuba.

Does anyone see them as really being communist? Some are a smidge closer than others I suppose. By the same measure, those that are labeled democracy have failed fairly often as well. And those that succeed are often just as far off the label as China is off its. How many democracies have a large turn out with anything even approaching 50% of the population voting for the winning group?

The opposite of communist is capitalist, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean you can't have a democracy that is communist. But your point still rings true, how many capitalist societies have private police/fire dept/sewer/ health care ect ect.

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

#147
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems a best a very bad caricature of what happened in the Soviet Union. What's happening in Communist China now?

After thinking about it, I feel like the comparison to China deserves a discussion. China moved away from pure communism a long time ago, and basically implemented a form of capitalism-on-communism. They're now arguably the most dog-eat-dog capitalist country in the world, very far from a worker's paradise that communism is supposed to be. A more fair comparison would be to North Korea. They're still old-school commu…

And the US isn't purely capitalistic either; public police/fire dept/sewer, has semi public health care in medicare.

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

#148
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone see them as really being communist? Some are a smidge closer than others I suppose. By the same measure, those that are labeled democracy have failed fairly often as well. And those that succeed are often just as far off the label as China is off its. How many democracies have a large turn out with anything even approaching 50% of the population voting for the winning group?

The opposite of communist is capitalist, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean you can't have a democracy that is communist. But your point still rings true, how many capitalist societies have private police/fire dept/sewer/ health care ect ect.

Great point. Here in New Zealand we are moving towards private water/sewer and healthcare. But there is a long way to go before police and fire departments are privatized. Has anywhere privatized fire departments and police?

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

#149
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is labelled as communism doesn't always fail, see China, Venezuela, Cuba.

You can see an extremely sharp bend in pretty much all economic indicators in China when they reformed away from marxism and adopted capitalist policies under Deng Xiaoping. To claim that Cuba isn't a failure is just silly, and Venezuela (which isn't labelled communist, by the way) is failing very fast.

How on earth is Cuba a failure in any metric except GDP and nice cars? Seriously. People are well educated, they have more doctors per capita than any country on earth. It's certainly doing a lot better than the Capitalist haven of Haiti. Venezuela, okay, not communist, socialist, still the bogeyman in the US.

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

#150
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Inca were easy to conquer because they had no steel and no horses. The Spanish were so unimaginably horrible that I can't imagine their presence having anything other than a uniting effect. The book "The Last Days Of The Inca" describe a scene were ~20 armored conquistadors are in a town that's surrounded by mountains on all sides. The Incas managed to call in enough people that the hillsides were all completely…

> covered with tens of thousands of people waiting to attack. When they did, the entire population was slaughtered by the 20 conquistadors on horseback That's completely and utterly ridiculous. What were the conquistadors? Supermen?

How do you propose to defeat a band of 20 knights on warhorses, in plate armor from head to foot, bearing pole-arms and swords, using an army of bewildered lackeys armed with stone age technology?
Post reply on HN