The Invention of Money • Hacker News Board

Re: The Invention of Money

#91

Post by tschwimmer » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #27

contingencies wrote: post #18

Debt: The First 5,000 Years is my preferred introduction. Critically this New Yorker account is missing the word 'usury' which was largely agreed to be evil by early religions and societies that experienced its effects...

> ... is missing the word 'usury' which was largely agreed to be evil by early religions and societies that experienced its effects... It should be noted that the reasons we borrow money today is different than why it was done in the past. In the past, the "average" person was usually a farmer, and if they needed to borrow money, it was probably because their crops had failed and they needed to money to buy food to f…

This is in my opinion not accurate. Farmers borrowed money then for the same reason they do now: to smooth cashflows. Farming is an inherently lumpy business from a cashflow perspective. You plant your seeds and incur a bunch of costs now, and only months later can you harvest and sell them.

So yes, it was 'unfair' to farmers to charge interest because it's pretty much required, but also farmers had a vested business interest in getting money lent for low interest rates.

Re: The Invention of Money

#92

Post by JackFr » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

vishnugupta wrote: post #87

JackFr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years" is a book length op-ed. It's not useful with respect to economic history.

I for one quite enjoyed reading, and learned from, that book. Could you please suggest good books about economic history. I'm looking to expand my knowledge in that domain.

More popular history:

https://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/...

https://www.amazon.com/Splendid-Exchange-Trade-Shaped-World/...

https://www.amazon.com/Cash-Nexus-Money-Modern-1700-2000/dp/...

https://www.amazon.com/Devil-Take-Hindmost-Financial-Specula...

Academic but readable:

https://www.amazon.com/Manias-Panics-Crashes-History-Financi...

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Financial-Capitalism-Internation...

Re: The Invention of Money

#93

Post by JackFr » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

pradn wrote: post #89

JackFr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years" is a book length op-ed. It's not useful with respect to economic history.

I don't think that's fair. The majority of the book is a straightforward history of money that doesn't accept received wisdom. Near the end, the author's more anarchist leanings color the narrative. The last two chapters are not as informative, but that doesn't mean one should discount the majority of the book. A few takeaways I have from that book: 1) In rural/traditional societies, debt (measured and stored in peop…

> The classic economy-textbook idea that we invented currency so we don't have to barter with the goods we produce has never been observed in history.

http://icm.clsbe.lisboa.ucp.pt/docentes/url/jcn/ie2/0POWCamp...

Cigarettes were the numeraire for all transactions for the sake of efficiency.

Re: The Invention of Money

#94

Post by count » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #75

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faith is the only real money. The only thing money measures is optimism about the future - both micro ("I am optimistic that you can repay this loan") macro ("I am optimistic this country's military spending and worker-hostile environment guarantees my investment will be protected"), corporate ("I am optimistic about the contents of this earnings call"), and specific ("I have more faith in this asset class than in ot…

Functionally , gold serves as a lack of faith in fiat currency - almost as a short. When you expect inflation in your local fiat currency, you start looking at gold as a way of preserving your value.

But that requires faith that someone will accept that gold in the future in exchange for goods/services. So, again, it's just faith at the root of it.

Re: The Invention of Money

#95

Post by ci5er » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #60

Symmetry wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that book and mostly enjoyed it than I got to the last chapter and found it was riddled with errors I could easily spot like the in following sentence: Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other’s garages. Reading arou…

That's a shocking amount of inaccuracy to pack into a single sentence!

It is!

I've been trying to think of a more compact/dense incorrect sentence for a bit now, and I can't really think of an alternative. (Although some of the political screeds from the election of 1800 might have been close, and I have yet to go mine twitter for examples)

Re: The Invention of Money

#96

Post by rags2riches » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #86

nosianu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is gold more real than debt? To me debt is far superior. Debt means you have a commitment from a human (directly or indirectly, if the debt is owed by an organization). Gold has no inherent value at all apart from some minor uses of relatively small amounts in the economy. Except by agreement, which debt also has. An example for debt-based I once read somewhere was a kid writing an IOU for garden work. As long as…

>>Gold has no inherent value... Jewellery. 2200 tons last year. Was popular 3000 years ago ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Tutankhamun ) and will probably be in 3000 more. Try getting the wife a plastic wedding ring if you think it has no value. I daresay that's different from saying it's any good as money.

How popular would gold jewelry be if gold was inexpensive?

Re: The Invention of Money

#97

Post by JackFr » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

pradn wrote: post #89

JackFr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years" is a book length op-ed. It's not useful with respect to economic history.

I don't think that's fair. The majority of the book is a straightforward history of money that doesn't accept received wisdom. Near the end, the author's more anarchist leanings color the narrative. The last two chapters are not as informative, but that doesn't mean one should discount the majority of the book. A few takeaways I have from that book: 1) In rural/traditional societies, debt (measured and stored in peop…

> I don't think that's fair.

Maybe I suppose.

I read the book, though I was pretty familiar with the material already. To me it seemed immediately he adopted a hectoring, moralizing tone that was quite unnecessary and distracting. From the outset, he seemed unable to see past the framework of political power structures, and because of that basically missed the point of modern financial capitalism.

Re: The Invention of Money

#98

Post by panarky » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #62

panarky wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was unseemly to lend money to someone who, without it, would die. "Medical debt is a uniquely American phenomenon, a burden that would be unfathomable in many other developed countries." "Nearly 60 percent of people who have filed for bankruptcy said a medical expense 'very much' or 'somewhat' contributed to their bankruptcy." https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/hospital-...

I live in Canada.

Congratulations, I'm happy for you!

Not sure that changes the relevance of the usury discussion, even if you personally are insulated from medical bankruptcy.

Re: The Invention of Money

#99

Post by kortilla » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

panarky wrote: post #41

throw0101a wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... is missing the word 'usury' which was largely agreed to be evil by early religions and societies that experienced its effects... It should be noted that the reasons we borrow money today is different than why it was done in the past. In the past, the "average" person was usually a farmer, and if they needed to borrow money, it was probably because their crops had failed and they needed to money to buy food to f…

> It was unseemly to lend money to someone who, without it, would die. "Medical debt is a uniquely American phenomenon, a burden that would be unfathomable in many other developed countries." "Nearly 60 percent of people who have filed for bankruptcy said a medical expense 'very much' or 'somewhat' contributed to their bankruptcy." https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/hospital-...

The fact that bankruptcy is even possible is completely different still from the usury of 500 years ago.

Re: The Invention of Money

#100

Post by mymythisisthis » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

contingencies wrote: post #18

Debt: The First 5,000 Years is my preferred introduction. Critically this New Yorker account is missing the word 'usury' which was largely agreed to be evil by early religions and societies that experienced its effects...

Samuel Pepy's journal is a fascinating account of how money functioned in the 1660s. There was very little actual money, everything was done in IOUs. He worked in the Navy, purchasing food and rope. The King gave him an IOU, he then wrote IOUs to people he bought things from. People seemed to know exactly how much you had. One time a friend of his hurt a servant, the next day everyone went to cash in their IOU with the friend fearing there would be a rush to do so. The friend was ruined and lost everything having to pay out the IOUs. Respect was everything in such a society.