Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Explain to me how the economy works

Devilry
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 2:46:00 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
So you have people working the land or whatever, and they're producing things, and other people are producing other things, and these people trade. That's a sort of basic economy; people are getting the necessities out of it, working their arses off.

Then say people produce more than they need to trade for necessities, and so they trade the surplus for gold, which they keep. Soon enough everything has a value in gold.

But what the fck happens then? People begin paying others in gold to do work for them, hoping to get more gold in return. And everyone's only after gold. So you have people working the land, and generating food etc., and selling it... to people working for gold, for them, and for others doing similarly. And so there's this flow of gold, from employer to employee, and the idea is that the employer gets more gold out of it, that's what sustains this whole enterprise. But... from where?

And so you're looking at failure as a key component of economy. One person pays another for something; does nothing with that something; starves. The person paid pays into a business it wasn't paying into before; that business grows; perhaps employs that person, or another person.

And then it ends up something like, one person just tries to own all the gold, and all the production, and it's a sort of slavery. You just do whatever the fck they want; they feed you; they're setting all the terms. Money is a system of IOU's, basically. But what are you owed? That's up to the man setting the prices, right?

How does this work?
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 4:31:59 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 2:46:00 PM, Devilry wrote:
So you have people working the land or whatever, and they're producing things, and other people are producing other things, and these people trade. That's a sort of basic economy; people are getting the necessities out of it, working their arses off.

Then say people produce more than they need to trade for necessities, and so they trade the surplus for gold, which they keep. Soon enough everything has a value in gold.

But what the fck happens then? People begin paying others in gold to do work for them, hoping to get more gold in return. And everyone's only after gold. So you have people working the land, and generating food etc., and selling it... to people working for gold, for them, and for others doing similarly. And so there's this flow of gold, from employer to employee, and the idea is that the employer gets more gold out of it, that's what sustains this whole enterprise. But... from where?

And so you're looking at failure as a key component of economy. One person pays another for something; does nothing with that something; starves. The person paid pays into a business it wasn't paying into before; that business grows; perhaps employs that person, or another person.

And then it ends up something like, one person just tries to own all the gold, and all the production, and it's a sort of slavery. You just do whatever the fck they want; they feed you; they're setting all the terms. Money is a system of IOU's, basically. But what are you owed? That's up to the man setting the prices, right?

How does this work?

Through faith. People believe in the system, therefor the system works. In essence, the economy is nothing more than an extremely complicated resource distribution system.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 5:54:49 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 2:46:00 PM, Devilry wrote:
So you have people working the land or whatever, and they're producing things, and other people are producing other things, and these people trade. That's a sort of basic economy; people are getting the necessities out of it, working their arses off.

Correct. A barter system. Bartering was the first form of economics for civilized man, and even prior.

Then say people produce more than they need to trade for necessities, and so they trade the surplus for gold, which they keep. Soon enough everything has a value in gold.

Not quite how that works. See in your example, you're still in a barter system, you just have no further use for daily essentials, so you switch to bartering for gold, which you have placed a value on for yourself. Think of it this way -- Your family produces grain, you use this grain for bartering at market once a week. Now, you don't just barter for one item type then go home for a week right? No, that's dumb. So you barter for bread, then meat, then eggs, milk, etc. Those eggs you traded grain for, it's interchangeable with gold; gold being just another product, just like any other.

Gold (and silver) being introduced as the first trade system economy (currency), has a very long, very deep, and very complex history. I'll keep it basic here though:

1) Gold first found in the bottom of streams. Gold was the first widely known metal to humans due to its ease of discovery, abundance, and wide disbursement globally. It immediately became a favorite with humans because of its purity, shine and brilliance in its natural state as well as ease of working. All other metals come in ore form which require smelting, a complex process, in order to find their beauty and uses. The way gold shines and its unique, eye-catching color, standing out from the rest of nature, led to the belief that it had a direct connection to the gods.

2) As humans learned to work with gold, it quickly became a staple of ornaments and jewelry, first for purpose with the gods, then for decoration.

3) Since all humans seem to have similar views of gold, its value, its power, etc.; gold had an inherent value to it and was well sought after.

4) As metal working skills increased, we began creating equally sized, well-measured discs of gold that today we recognize as coins. These were used for the earliest trade systems.

5) As trade routes formed and different nations came together to trade goods, humans realized the similar value we held in gold, which paved the way for it to become the first "Money".

6) Eventually it made its way to being the global standard for four reasons: First, it's a solid, so it's easily handled and transported. Second, it must not be corrosive or reactive as it must last forever. Third, it's not radioactive, which would obviously kill humans. Radioactive materials also radiate away which violate rule #2. Finally, gold is rare enough to be valuable, yet abundant enough that it's not scarce.

And that's the skeletal review of how gold became the standard of currency globally.

But what the fck happens then? People begin paying others in gold to do work for them, hoping to get more gold in return. And everyone's only after gold. So you have people working the land, and generating food etc., and selling it... to people working for gold, for them, and for others doing similarly. And so there's this flow of gold, from employer to employee, and the idea is that the employer gets more gold out of it, that's what sustains this whole enterprise. But... from where?


AH! The Law of Conservation of Wealth. What you have to do at this point, is stop thinking of gold as -- well, gold. Instead, you need to view gold as money, just like a dollar bill. Just as matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred; wealth can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred between mediums.

We started with a straight barter system, which was very erratic and unreliable. We then moved to a trade system which was a hybrid barter / gold-as-currency system. This was still unreliable. These two systems really thrived in early permanent settlements which were small and spread over vast distances from each other.

As permanent settlements grew, and civilization as we know it today began to take hold, with large populations living together, humans began developing hierarchical, authoritative structures. Most importantly, the creation and acceptance of leadership roles with decision-making power for the local population. For many reasons, leaders adopted a full monetary style system, with standardized gold and silver coins having set values. This set standards of worth, for example: "In our city, 2 loaves of bread are worth 1 gold coin; no more, no less." The worth of the gold coin being set by the total weight of gold used to make each gold coin.

In short, whether you are carrying 2 loaves bread, or you are carrying 1 gold coin, you are in possession of the exact same amount of wealth. The creation of this standardization is what guarantees no person has the incentive to hoard the city's gold supply.

Now understand, there are MANY additional parts there at play including the amount of gold a city has in its treasury, the treasury gold supplies being the source of gold to produce coins, evolution of standardized gold value with neighboring cities to avoid migration of gold coins from one city to another, moving away from gold currency to the "Gold Standard", and MUCH more. Again, this is all extremely basic.

And so you're looking at failure as a key component of economy. One person pays another for something; does nothing with that something; starves. The person paid pays into a business it wasn't paying into before; that business grows; perhaps employs that person, or another person.


Standardization of value as explained in the last section is why this collapse does not happen. 1 gold coin is worth 2 loaves of bread. 3 hours of labor for an employer doing "X" task is worth 1 gold coin. This means that "X" task performed for 3 hours, is also worth 2 loaves of bread. As you can see, wealth, or 1 gold coin and 2 loaves of bread in this case, can never be created or or destroyed, only transferred.

Your labor for 3 hours is your current level of wealth --> the employer's 1 gold coin is his current value of wealth --> You give the employer your current wealth (labor) and the employer gives you his current value of wealth (1 gold coin).

The employer now has a current wealth of the results of your labor (supplies to make bread) and will transfer that wealth to another person in trade for their current value of wealth equal to 1 gold coin.

You give your current wealth (1 gold coin) to a salesman for 2 loaves of bread which is his current wealth.

The salesman goes to your employer from the start and gives him the 1 gold coin and the employer gives him his current wealth of supplies to make more bread which your wealth of labor produced.

And cycle starts again.

Everything within an economy is linked to each other very tightly in this way. This is why you cannot do something like arbitrarily doubling federal minimum wage -- this action will break the delicate balance of wealth swapping.

Hit me back with a private message again and let me know if that made any sense for you, if you sort of understand now, if you have any more question, or whatever.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 6:37:15 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
you seem to have a rough idea of how it works. So does everybody else.
There are some guys who have a Phd. in economics who know more about it than you do, but nobody knows everything about it.
If you ask anyone of those "experts" about what will happen to the economy in the future, or what can be done that will fix it, the best answer he can give you will be an educated guess.
Devilry
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 8:33:19 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 5:54:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Hit me back with a private message again and let me know if that made any sense for you, if you sort of understand now, if you have any more question, or whatever.

Cheers for your response. It's all this part though that I'm having a problem with:

Your labor for 3 hours is your current level of wealth --> the employer's 1 gold coin is his current value of wealth --> You give the employer your current wealth (labor) and the employer gives you his current value of wealth (1 gold coin).

The employer now has a current wealth of the results of your labor (supplies to make bread) and will transfer that wealth to another person in trade for their current value of wealth equal to 1 gold coin.

This makes no sense. So the employer had a gold coin, gave it to you for a gold coin worth of your labour, gave that labour to someone else for a gold coin? Why, exactly? There's not even a business in this; if he repeats the process, he's never eating.

You give your current wealth (1 gold coin) to a salesman for 2 loaves of bread which is his current wealth.

Fine.

The salesman goes to your employer from the start and gives him the 1 gold coin and the employer gives him his current wealth of supplies to make more bread which your wealth of labor produced.

And cycle starts again.

When does your employer eat? You're eating here; the employer isn't. And neither is the salesman for that matter.

Everything within an economy is linked to each other very tightly in this way.

Businesses require profit. What you explained here makes no sense. And once you start playing for profit, things get really fcking tricky, too.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 8:42:08 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:33:19 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:54:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Hit me back with a private message again and let me know if that made any sense for you, if you sort of understand now, if you have any more question, or whatever.

Cheers for your response. It's all this part though that I'm having a problem with:

Your labor for 3 hours is your current level of wealth --> the employer's 1 gold coin is his current value of wealth --> You give the employer your current wealth (labor) and the employer gives you his current value of wealth (1 gold coin).

The employer now has a current wealth of the results of your labor (supplies to make bread) and will transfer that wealth to another person in trade for their current value of wealth equal to 1 gold coin.

This makes no sense. So the employer had a gold coin, gave it to you for a gold coin worth of your labour, gave that labour to someone else for a gold coin? Why, exactly? There's not even a business in this; if he repeats the process, he's never eating.

You give your current wealth (1 gold coin) to a salesman for 2 loaves of bread which is his current wealth.

Fine.

The salesman goes to your employer from the start and gives him the 1 gold coin and the employer gives him his current wealth of supplies to make more bread which your wealth of labor produced.

And cycle starts again.

When does your employer eat? You're eating here; the employer isn't. And neither is the salesman for that matter.

Everything within an economy is linked to each other very tightly in this way.

Businesses require profit. What you explained here makes no sense. And once you start playing for profit, things get really fcking tricky, too.

Basically the employer is getting paid to manage your labor for you. Some people are quite horrible at managing their labor, choosing to do completely useless things with their labor like spending time making art out of feces, or making grain when everyone already has grain.
Devilry
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 8:47:32 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:42:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/20/2016 8:33:19 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:54:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Hit me back with a private message again and let me know if that made any sense for you, if you sort of understand now, if you have any more question, or whatever.

Cheers for your response. It's all this part though that I'm having a problem with:

Your labor for 3 hours is your current level of wealth --> the employer's 1 gold coin is his current value of wealth --> You give the employer your current wealth (labor) and the employer gives you his current value of wealth (1 gold coin).

The employer now has a current wealth of the results of your labor (supplies to make bread) and will transfer that wealth to another person in trade for their current value of wealth equal to 1 gold coin.

This makes no sense. So the employer had a gold coin, gave it to you for a gold coin worth of your labour, gave that labour to someone else for a gold coin? Why, exactly? There's not even a business in this; if he repeats the process, he's never eating.

You give your current wealth (1 gold coin) to a salesman for 2 loaves of bread which is his current wealth.

Fine.

The salesman goes to your employer from the start and gives him the 1 gold coin and the employer gives him his current wealth of supplies to make more bread which your wealth of labor produced.

And cycle starts again.

When does your employer eat? You're eating here; the employer isn't. And neither is the salesman for that matter.

Everything within an economy is linked to each other very tightly in this way.

Businesses require profit. What you explained here makes no sense. And once you start playing for profit, things get really fcking tricky, too.

Basically the employer is getting paid to manage your labor for you. Some people are quite horrible at managing their labor, choosing to do completely useless things with their labor like spending time making art out of feces, or making grain when everyone already has grain.

Nah dude. The employers are cutting you in, in exchange for your labour. And after that it's a problem of them making their money back, because they're wanting more back than what they've paid out. Bill Gates ain't just managing anyone's labour.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 9:04:21 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:47:32 PM, Devilry wrote:

Basically the employer is getting paid to manage your labor for you. Some people are quite horrible at managing their labor, choosing to do completely useless things with their labor like spending time making art out of feces, or making grain when everyone already has grain.

Nah dude. The employers are cutting you in, in exchange for your labour. And after that it's a problem of them making their money back, because they're wanting more back than what they've paid out. Bill Gates ain't just managing anyone's labour.

You are 100 percent wrong about this. There is a reason some people are self employed and some people are not.
Devilry
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 9:12:52 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 9:04:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/20/2016 8:47:32 PM, Devilry wrote:

Basically the employer is getting paid to manage your labor for you. Some people are quite horrible at managing their labor, choosing to do completely useless things with their labor like spending time making art out of feces, or making grain when everyone already has grain.

Nah dude. The employers are cutting you in, in exchange for your labour. And after that it's a problem of them making their money back, because they're wanting more back than what they've paid out. Bill Gates ain't just managing anyone's labour.

You are 100 percent wrong about this. There is a reason some people are self employed and some people are not.

Yes, some people have a talent for knowing what's needed, while others just follow along. But the value of the produce has to be greater than that paid to the worker, right? And then employers are going to make that difference as sizable as they can. And then you have problems on the large scale.

You and this other dude are describing some communist sht.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 9:14:44 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
Once the value of a thing is more than the cost of its labour, then you have problems. And managers ain't just a part of that cost, their wage is something separate, dependent on the sale -- which they can't get because they ain't paying out enough.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:48:56 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 9:12:52 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 11/20/2016 9:04:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/20/2016 8:47:32 PM, Devilry wrote:

Basically the employer is getting paid to manage your labor for you. Some people are quite horrible at managing their labor, choosing to do completely useless things with their labor like spending time making art out of feces, or making grain when everyone already has grain.

Nah dude. The employers are cutting you in, in exchange for your labour. And after that it's a problem of them making their money back, because they're wanting more back than what they've paid out. Bill Gates ain't just managing anyone's labour.

You are 100 percent wrong about this. There is a reason some people are self employed and some people are not.

Yes, some people have a talent for knowing what's needed, while others just follow along. But the value of the produce has to be greater than that paid to the worker, right? And then employers are going to make that difference as sizable as they can. And then you have problems on the large scale.

You and this other dude are describing some communist sht.

Lol, you are wrong again. Communist sht would be a situation where an employer was NOT being paid to manage your labor.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Sure, prehistoric man not capable of speech may have bartered meat for fruit, that kind of thing, which is not an economic system.
By economic system I men people are living in communities, building houses, animal domestication, needing wheat to make flour, etc.

Fiat can be dated back to 2000BC.

I will let my source explain it:
Before paper money there was Chinese coins from base metal, not silver or gold, but before that there were credits, fiat money.

To make his point as clear as possible, Graeber (p. 29) quotes from Caroline Humphrey"s Cambridge University dissertation as the definitive anthropological work on barter. Her statement is as clear as it is emphatic.

"No example of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence from it of money; all available ethnography suggests there has never been such a thing." Innes knew this 100 years ago, yet the myth persists.

So if there has never been a land of barter, where did we get money and credit? Innes (p. 397) argues that systems of credit pre-date coins by over a thousand years. "The earliest known coins of the western world are those of ancient Greece, the oldest of which, belonging to the settlements on the coast of Asia Minor, date from the sixth or seventh centuries B.C."

In contrast, the law of debt goes back to at least the Code of Hammurabi in Babylonia 2000 years B.C. Innes saw that the foundation of society and thereby of credit was that promises or obligations were and are viewed as sacred. In all societies (p. 391) the breaking of the pledged word, or the refusal to carry out an obligation is held equally disgraceful."

He goes on to explain how wooden tally sticks and clay shubati tablets were used to track credits/purchases and debits/sales long before the existence of coins. And that one could repay a debt by returning a credit of the same amount to the lender. In fact, village fairs were convened so that those holding the debts of others could match credits and debits together and thereby clear their accounts. Over time others showed up to buy and sell other goods and services or to cater to those in this most basic business of banking.
There are a variety of reasons why this matters for monetary theory and macroeconomic policy. But let me leave you with just one. From the Smithian story, it was gold and silver that backed the issuance of a paper currency. However, if Innes is right, the banking system never worked in that way.

In Innes"s world, money is and always has been a token representing a socially constructed debit-credit relationship. A stamped coin, $20 bill, or tax refund check is an asset"a credit" to those who hold it and a liability"a debit"for the government who issues it. When the federal government spends, perhaps by directly depositing a Social Security recipient"s check into her account, a special kind of credit is created. This credit"a new "debt" of the federal government"satisfies all four functions that are used to define money. It serves as a medium of exchange, store of value, means of payment, and a unit of account. But what gives this money value? The money is valuable because it is the only token acceptable for the payment of taxes. And when those taxes are paid, the money that had been spent into existence is extinguished. Thus, it is through federal government spending that money enters the economy and through taxation that it is destroyed. This is where Innes"s 100- year-old insights lead. If these ideas are hold up under academic scrutiny, are further disseminated, and become the basis of how we understand money and credit, an entirely new paradigm will need to emerge in the study of monetary economics.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org...

~ ~
Also
How Barter Followed and Did Not Precede the Creation of Money
http://p2pfoundation.net...

~ ~ ~

Yes, the old, "First came Barter, then money like precious metals, then, the evil fiat worthless credits", is a fairy tail, baseless, without evidence.
The fairy tale says fiat started about 1000AD. The evidence says 3000 years before that.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:58:30 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:33:19 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 11/20/2016 5:54:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Hit me back with a private message again and let me know if that made any sense for you, if you sort of understand now, if you have any more question, or whatever.

Cheers for your response. It's all this part though that I'm having a problem with:

Your labor for 3 hours is your current level of wealth --> the employer's 1 gold coin is his current value of wealth --> You give the employer your current wealth (labor) and the employer gives you his current value of wealth (1 gold coin).

The employer now has a current wealth of the results of your labor (supplies to make bread) and will transfer that wealth to another person in trade for their current value of wealth equal to 1 gold coin.

This makes no sense. So the employer had a gold coin, gave it to you for a gold coin worth of your labour, gave that labour to someone else for a gold coin? Why, exactly? There's not even a business in this; if he repeats the process, he's never eating.

Yeah, I'm having trouble taking an entire nation's complex economic system, and creating an easy to understand mini model to teach from. Let me try again here:

1) The labor you performed was to harvest and package ingredients required to make bread.
2) You took your earnings and purchased bread from the baker at the marketplace
3) The baker then goes to your employer and purchases supplies to make more bread to sell
4) The supplies the baker purchases, are the supplies you harvested and packaged
5) You go back to your employer the next day to work again, and the process begins again.

It's meant to show the cyclical motion of economics, how everything is dependent on each other, and how wealth takes many forms, but the value of each form of wealth is not random, but is based upon the value of gold and how the free market sees its worth in comparison to all other market components.

You are correct in your evaluation that it appears that nobody is make any profit and never eating. However, I simply dumbed this down to avoid having to itemize all of the life expenses for each party involved in order to show cyclical economics and how wealth is never created or destroyed. if I were to detail a full budget for these parties, not only would it be massive and complex, but it would also then require detailing budgets for all the parties the original three interacted with -- then all the parties that these secondary parties interacted -- and their parties -- and so on. It would have quickly expanded into a massive and mind-numbing novel of numbers and equations. It's better to keep the system as small and basic as possible when teaching someone about general economics.

One gold coin was used in the example and no profit margins incorporated as I would then have to explain where that profit went and how it loops around the system, eventually making its way back to starting position -- this would lead to the quickly expanding data sheets talked about in the previous paragraph.

The salesman goes to your employer from the start and gives him the 1 gold coin and the employer gives him his current wealth of supplies to make more bread which your wealth of labor produced.

And cycle starts again.

When does your employer eat? You're eating here; the employer isn't. And neither is the salesman for that matter.

I purposely left profit margins out of the basic model as this would lead to requirement of then touching on where his profits go, then detailing the wealth cycles of those individual businesses, then the parties they do business with, and so on until the entire system is detailed. I simply wanted focus to be set on the smallest, logical, closed system as possible to offer ease of understanding.

If you need, I can expand to secondary parties in order to show profit margins. However, you would have to go in with the understanding that at the point where we add profit margins into the equation, there will be no way to fully justify the system without a massive, complex explanation of a full economy...which won't happen on this site. Without a massive system, you will have orphaned wealth -- money that is never addressed. You would be expected at that point, to use logic and reasoning on your own in expanding the pattern until the entire system closed as I showed with my basic model.

Everything within an economy is linked to each other very tightly in this way.

Businesses require profit. What you explained here makes no sense. And once you start playing for profit, things get really fcking tricky, too.

Correct, it can get tricky if you think of it on a macro level. Instead think of a micro level. Let's do a brief dip into profit here:

1) Let's say the employer receives 5 gold coins for each bread kit he sells.

2) Of that, 1 gold goes to you for your labor -- 1 gold goes to the supplier of the packing materials required -- 1 gold goes to producing the raw materials for the bread kit (split to multiple suppliers such as the water company, electric company, fertilizer supplier) -- the remaining 2 gold is profit for him.

3) The employer places 1 gold in the bank

4) The employer uses the remaining 1 gold to go to market and purchase 2 loaves of bread for his family

Number 4 shows our second wealth track being closed. The first wealth track closed was employer, you, baker. The second wealth track closed was employer and baker.

Number 3 represents a bank account. We won't actually detail this track, but understand that when you put cash in the bank, it's not actually there. It immediately gets sent out by the bank, to another customer, in the form of a car loan, mortgage, etc.; this continues the wealth track. In real life, you don't actually have any money in your bank account...only representative numbers, acting as place holders for your actual money. When you go to the bank and pull out $500 in cash, the bank actually pulls that from another customer's contributions and gives it to you, just like how your cash went to some random person's mortgage. Therefore, nobody actually hordes wealth, pulling it out of circulation, which could throw the system out of balance.

All of the parties which fall within Number 2 would then need to be individually detailed, showing each of the wealth tracks they are involved with

Do you see now why I am trying to keep this as basic as possible?
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 7:03:23 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 2:46:00 PM, Devilry wrote:
So you have people working the land or whatever, and they're producing things, and other people are producing other things, and these people trade. That's a sort of basic economy; people are getting the necessities out of it, working their arses off.

Then say people produce more than they need to trade for necessities, and so they trade the surplus for gold, which they keep. Soon enough everything has a value in gold.

But what the fck happens then? People begin paying others in gold to do work for them, hoping to get more gold in return. And everyone's only after gold. So you have people working the land, and generating food etc., and selling it... to people working for gold, for them, and for others doing similarly. And so there's this flow of gold, from employer to employee, and the idea is that the employer gets more gold out of it, that's what sustains this whole enterprise. But... from where?

And so you're looking at failure as a key component of economy. One person pays another for something; does nothing with that something; starves. The person paid pays into a business it wasn't paying into before; that business grows; perhaps employs that person, or another person.

And then it ends up something like, one person just tries to own all the gold, and all the production, and it's a sort of slavery. You just do whatever the fck they want; they feed you; they're setting all the terms. Money is a system of IOU's, basically. But what are you owed? That's up to the man setting the prices, right?

How does this work?

The number one rule of economics is: how to distribute resources in a world of scarcity?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 7:03:55 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 12:37:34 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
This should be in the economics forums, not politics

No, this is actually a branch off of a political topic we were discussing. We did not want to flood the thread with this detailing of a single point of interest, so a child thread was opened. Keeping the two threads in the same location, allows them to be properly visible to the intended audience. It should be viewed as a child of a parent thread, but we don't have that type of structuring ability on this site as of this time.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 7:04:36 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 2:46:00 PM, Devilry wrote:
So you have people working the land or whatever, and they're producing things, and other people are producing other things, and these people trade. That's a sort of basic economy; people are getting the necessities out of it, working their arses off.

Then say people produce more than they need to trade for necessities, and so they trade the surplus for gold, which they keep. Soon enough everything has a value in gold.

But what the fck happens then? People begin paying others in gold to do work for them, hoping to get more gold in return. And everyone's only after gold. So you have people working the land, and generating food etc., and selling it... to people working for gold, for them, and for others doing similarly. And so there's this flow of gold, from employer to employee, and the idea is that the employer gets more gold out of it, that's what sustains this whole enterprise. But... from where?

And so you're looking at failure as a key component of economy. One person pays another for something; does nothing with that something; starves. The person paid pays into a business it wasn't paying into before; that business grows; perhaps employs that person, or another person.

And then it ends up something like, one person just tries to own all the gold, and all the production, and it's a sort of slavery. You just do whatever the fck they want; they feed you; they're setting all the terms. Money is a system of IOU's, basically. But what are you owed? That's up to the man setting the prices, right?

How does this work?

The economy is each of us engaging in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. It is that simple.

If one person were to have all the gold, its value would be very low, and others would use another type of money to exchange goods and services.

Problems arise when governments use the monopoly of violence to enfluence exchanges.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 7:08:45 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Bartering was introduced by Mesopotamian tribes in 6,000 BC.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 8:03:46 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 2:46:00 PM, Devilry wrote:
So there's this flow of gold, from employer to employee, and the idea is that the employer gets more gold out of it, that's what sustains this whole enterprise. But... from where?

Gold mines.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 1:11:41 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 7:08:45 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Bartering was introduced by Mesopotamian tribes in 6,000 BC.

So that would be, what, right before recorded history.
Possibly that is why you can't reference your source.

Here is what Wikipedia says, about bartering.

However, ethnographic studies have shown no present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, nor have anthropologists found evidence that money emerged from barter, instead finding that gift-giving (credit extended on a personal basis with an inter-personal balance maintained over the long term) was the most usual means of exchange of goods and services.[3]

Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, and hence cannot be used to naturalistically explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit.[6][7] Marcel Mauss, author of 'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, and that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter.[8]
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 1:27:08 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 8:03:46 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 11/20/2016 2:46:00 PM, Devilry wrote:
So there's this flow of gold, from employer to employee, and the idea is that the employer gets more gold out of it, that's what sustains this whole enterprise. But... from where?

Gold mines.

Yes.
Yes, a country thinks that it is wealthy, with millions of educated, trained workers, eager to produce. A fine infrastructure, with roads, bridges, communications networks, armed forces to protect the citizens, free flowing rivers and lakes, forests of mature trees.

Then one day this nation with millions of uneducated peasants, dirt trails for travel, and lots and lots of undeveloped dirt, makes a new discovery in that dirt.
This pretty shiny yellow stuff, by the buckets, if they had buckets, that is.
Pretty shiny yellow rocks, and the deeper they go, the more there is.
Now, overnight, they are the wealthiest country in the world, and they have the pretty shiny yellow rocks to prove it.
And they all lived happily ever after. The end.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:03:45 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 1:27:08 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Yes.
Yes, a country thinks that it is wealthy, with millions of educated, trained workers, eager to produce. A fine infrastructure, with roads, bridges, communications networks, armed forces to protect the citizens, free flowing rivers and lakes, forests of mature trees.

Then one day this nation with millions of uneducated peasants, dirt trails for travel, and lots and lots of undeveloped dirt, makes a new discovery in that dirt.
This pretty shiny yellow stuff, by the buckets, if they had buckets, that is.
Pretty shiny yellow rocks, and the deeper they go, the more there is.
Now, overnight, they are the wealthiest country in the world, and they have the pretty shiny yellow rocks to prove it.
And they all lived happily ever after. The end.

I do love happy endings.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:04:35 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 1:11:41 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:08:45 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Bartering was introduced by Mesopotamian tribes in 6,000 BC.

So that would be, what, right before recorded history.
Possibly that is why you can't reference your source.

Here is what Wikipedia says, about bartering.


I really could not care less about Wikipedia. You should have been taught in school that open-source blogs are never to be used as sources since anyone can enter anything, even if it's a lie. Wikipedia is not immune from this, and in fact, its popularity and easy accessibility make it the biggest offender of disseminating falsehoods.

However, ethnographic studies have shown no present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, nor have anthropologists found evidence that money emerged from barter, instead finding that gift-giving (credit extended on a personal basis with an inter-personal balance maintained over the long term) was the most usual means of exchange of goods and services.[3]


1) My post made a clear distinction between nomad, migrant, hunter-gatherer humans and the permanent settlement, agricultural humans.

2) Hunter-gatherers lived in groups of 8-12 people, traveling almost continuously, following the food sources. Each of these small groups generally belonged to a clan, consisting of 50-100 of their kin, spread in small groups over a very large area.

3) On the rare occasions that groups would run into another group of their kin, or groups from a neighboring kin, they would have helped each other out if one group needed something, by trading extra food from a hunt or bounty from gathering for items the other group were interested in such as weapons, tools and furs.

4) Ancient Greece used a barter system. In the early sixth century BC, coinage was created in Asia Minor. From the end of the sixth century on, Ancient Greece used used a mixture of barter and currency, with currency being the main usage.

https://eh.net...

5) I just learned something new as well. As early as 12,000 BC, young civilizations used numerous objects as "money" in their individual bartering systems. Anatolia being the earliest known usage. *Do not confuse "money" with "currency", they are two different things.

http://bebusinessed.com...

Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, and hence cannot be used to naturalistically explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit.[6][7] Marcel Mauss, author of 'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, and that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter.[8]

There was no "before money"..."money" is NOT currency. Money defines as -- "The assets, property or resources owned by someone or something. Also known as 'Wealth'."

In other words -- Currency is a type of money. Money is NOT a type of currency.

This is why you don't use Wikipedia for sourcing. The system Marcel Mauss is referring to there had nothing to do with villages. It was part of the nomadic culture. Since humans were constantly on the move, they normally did not have extra food or supplies on them as it would weigh them down and make the staple of their existence (movement) much too difficult.

If some environmental anomaly took place and a group of nomads were unable to find sustainable amounts of food in their assigned region, they would travel to the neighboring lands of their clansmen. The two small groups would create a temporary shelter, sit together socially, and the group in need would ask for help, citing the situation. The other group would then agree to open part of their assigned region of land to the group in need, until the issue resolved itself. The group in need would then agree to repay them at a later date, by means to be determined in the future.

This was an extension of credit, granted only to those most trustworthy to the provider, as they had to be sure the debt would be repaid. Nomadic groups helped each other out in this manner because the group holding the region of land next to you, was generally your family.

The system you speak of, regarding villages, was an equal distribution model used early on in the permanent settlement, agricultural human villages. The nomadic groups began to settle down and build permanent villages. Each of the members of the small group would be assigned a specific crop to grow, and men would form hunting parties for meat. Upon harvest time, each person would bring a predetermined amount of their specific crop to the group and everyone would share. Refusal to comply meant you were ostracized from the entire clan. All though this was indeed a verbal contract and equal distribution, it was also a type of barter system.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:29:35 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 3:04:35 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:11:41 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:08:45 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Bartering was introduced by Mesopotamian tribes in 6,000 BC.

So that would be, what, right before recorded history.
Possibly that is why you can't reference your source.

Here is what Wikipedia says, about bartering.


I really could not care less about Wikipedia. You should have been taught in school that open-source blogs are never to be used as sources since anyone can enter anything, even if it's a lie. Wikipedia is not immune from this, and in fact, its popularity and easy accessibility make it the biggest offender of disseminating falsehoods.


I've generally found Wikipedia to be excellent. We all know Wikipedia is not authoritative; the myth is that anybody else is.
This space for rent.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:34:41 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 3:04:35 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:11:41 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:08:45 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Bartering was introduced by Mesopotamian tribes in 6,000 BC.

So that would be, what, right before recorded history.
Possibly that is why you can't reference your source.

Here is what Wikipedia says, about bartering.


I really could not care less about Wikipedia. You should have been taught in school that open-source blogs are never to be used as sources since anyone can enter anything, even if it's a lie. Wikipedia is not immune from this, and in fact, its popularity and easy accessibility make it the biggest offender of disseminating falsehoods.

However, ethnographic studies have shown no present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, nor have anthropologists found evidence that money emerged from barter, instead finding that gift-giving (credit extended on a personal basis with an inter-personal balance maintained over the long term) was the most usual means of exchange of goods and services.[3]


1) My post made a clear distinction between nomad, migrant, hunter-gatherer humans and the permanent settlement, agricultural humans.

2) Hunter-gatherers lived in groups of 8-12 people, traveling almost continuously, following the food sources. Each of these small groups generally belonged to a clan, consisting of 50-100 of their kin, spread in small groups over a very large area.

3) On the rare occasions that groups would run into another group of their kin, or groups from a neighboring kin, they would have helped each other out if one group needed something, by trading extra food from a hunt or bounty from gathering for items the other group were interested in such as weapons, tools and furs.

4) Ancient Greece used a barter system. In the early sixth century BC, coinage was created in Asia Minor. From the end of the sixth century on, Ancient Greece used used a mixture of barter and currency, with currency being the main usage.

https://eh.net...

5) I just learned something new as well. As early as 12,000 BC, young civilizations used numerous objects as "money" in their individual bartering systems. Anatolia being the earliest known usage. *Do not confuse "money" with "currency", they are two different things.

http://bebusinessed.com...

Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, and hence cannot be used to naturalistically explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit.[6][7] Marcel Mauss, author of 'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, and that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter.[8]

There was no "before money"..."money" is NOT currency. Money defines as -- "The assets, property or resources owned by someone or something. Also known as 'Wealth'."

In other words -- Currency is a type of money. Money is NOT a type of currency.

This is why you don't use Wikipedia for sourcing. The system Marcel Mauss is referring to there had nothing to do with villages. It was part of the nomadic culture. Since humans were constantly on the move, they normally did not have extra food or supplies on them as it would weigh them down and make the staple of their existence (movement) much too difficult.

If some environmental anomaly took place and a group of nomads were unable to find sustainable amounts of food in their assigned region, they would travel to the neighboring lands of their clansmen. The two small groups would create a temporary shelter, sit together socially, and the group in need would ask for help, citing the situation. The other group would then agree to open part of their assigned region of land to the group in need, until the issue resolved itself. The group in need would then agree to repay them at a later date, by means to be determined in the future.

This was an extension of credit, granted only to those most trustworthy to the provider, as they had to be sure the debt would be repaid. Nomadic groups helped each other out in this manner because the group holding the region of land next to you, was generally your family.

The system you speak of, regarding villages, was an equal distribution model used early on in the permanent settlement, agricultural human villages. The nomadic groups began to settle down and build permanent villages. Each of the members of the small group would be assigned a specific crop to grow, and men would form hunting parties for meat. Upon harvest time, each person would bring a predetermined amount of their specific crop to the group and everyone would share. Refusal to comply meant you were ostracized from the entire clan. All though this was indeed a verbal contract and equal distribution, it was also a type of barter system.

Thanks for the post.
"Life" is calling, so it will be tomorrow before I can reply.
I would be interested in seeing your reply to my thread in economics, if you are so inclined.
http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:40:02 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 3:29:35 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:04:35 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:11:41 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:08:45 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Bartering was introduced by Mesopotamian tribes in 6,000 BC.

So that would be, what, right before recorded history.
Possibly that is why you can't reference your source.

Here is what Wikipedia says, about bartering.


I really could not care less about Wikipedia. You should have been taught in school that open-source blogs are never to be used as sources since anyone can enter anything, even if it's a lie. Wikipedia is not immune from this, and in fact, its popularity and easy accessibility make it the biggest offender of disseminating falsehoods.


I've generally found Wikipedia to be excellent. We all know Wikipedia is not authoritative; the myth is that anybody else is.

Roger that.
I learned 50 years ago to not believe everything I read in books.
You can say anything, and I do mean anything, and have it published in a book.
Books are terrible sources of accurate information, but much better than the alternatives.
The key is to be a discerning reader.

Wikipedia is simply a digital book, as far as I am concerned.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 8:36:49 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 3:29:35 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:04:35 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:11:41 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:08:45 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Bartering was introduced by Mesopotamian tribes in 6,000 BC.

So that would be, what, right before recorded history.
Possibly that is why you can't reference your source.

Here is what Wikipedia says, about bartering.


I really could not care less about Wikipedia. You should have been taught in school that open-source blogs are never to be used as sources since anyone can enter anything, even if it's a lie. Wikipedia is not immune from this, and in fact, its popularity and easy accessibility make it the biggest offender of disseminating falsehoods.


I've generally found Wikipedia to be excellent. We all know Wikipedia is not authoritative; the myth is that anybody else is.

To prove how bad Wikipedia is to one of my college classes a few years ago, I edited a page on Mel Gibson and made he the love child of an adulterous relationship between Hitler and Bigfoot. There were two paragraphs discussing their time traveling adventures where they introduced crack to the streets of LA and accidentally killed off the dinosaurs. It stayed up as fact for almost six months before it was taken down.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 12:26:48 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 3:04:35 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:11:41 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:08:45 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/21/2016 1:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
There is very strong evidence that barter did not evolve into metal coins, and then fiat.

No evidence that barter predates money in an economic system. This is all supposition, no evidence, pure faith.
If I am incorrect, show the evidence.

Bartering was introduced by Mesopotamian tribes in 6,000 BC.

So that would be, what, right before recorded history.
Possibly that is why you can't reference your source.

Here is what Wikipedia says, about bartering.


I really could not care less about Wikipedia. You should have been taught in school that open-source blogs are never to be used as sources since anyone can enter anything, even if it's a lie. Wikipedia is not immune from this, and in fact, its popularity and easy accessibility make it the biggest offender of disseminating falsehoods.

However, ethnographic studies have shown no present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, nor have anthropologists found evidence that money emerged from barter, instead finding that gift-giving (credit extended on a personal basis with an inter-personal balance maintained over the long term) was the most usual means of exchange of goods and services.[3]


1) My post made a clear distinction between nomad, migrant, hunter-gatherer humans and the permanent settlement, agricultural humans.

2) Hunter-gatherers lived in groups of 8-12 people, traveling almost continuously, following the food sources. Each of these small groups generally belonged to a clan, consisting of 50-100 of their kin, spread in small groups over a very large area.

3) On the rare occasions that groups would run into another group of their kin, or groups from a neighboring kin, they would have helped each other out if one group needed something, by trading extra food from a hunt or bounty from gathering for items the other group were interested in such as weapons, tools and furs.

4) Ancient Greece used a barter system. In the early sixth century BC, coinage was created in Asia Minor. From the end of the sixth century on, Ancient Greece used used a mixture of barter and currency, with currency being the main usage.

https://eh.net...

5) I just learned something new as well. As early as 12,000 BC, young civilizations used numerous objects as "money" in their individual bartering systems. Anatolia being the earliest known usage. *Do not confuse "money" with "currency", they are two different things.

http://bebusinessed.com...

Barter occurred between strangers, not fellow villagers, and hence cannot be used to naturalistically explain the origin of money without the state. Since most people engaged in trade knew each other, exchange was fostered through the extension of credit.[6][7] Marcel Mauss, author of 'The Gift', argued that the first economic contracts were to not act in one's economic self-interest, and that before money, exchange was fostered through the processes of reciprocity and redistribution, not barter.[8]

There was no "before money"..."money" is NOT currency. Money defines as -- "The assets, property or resources owned by someone or something. Also known as 'Wealth'."

In other words -- Currency is a type of money. Money is NOT a type of currency.

This is why you don't use Wikipedia for sourcing. The system Marcel Mauss is referring to there had nothing to do with villages. It was part of the nomadic culture. Since humans were constantly on the move, they normally did not have extra food or supplies on them as it would weigh them down and make the staple of their existence (movement) much too difficult.

If some environmental anomaly took place and a group of nomads were unable to find sustainable amounts of food in their assigned region, they would travel to the neighboring lands of their clansmen. The two small groups would create a temporary shelter, sit together socially, and the group in need would ask for help, citing the situation. The other group would then agree to open part of their assigned region of land to the group in need, until the issue resolved itself. The group in need would then agree to repay them at a later date, by means to be determined in the future.

This was an extension of credit, granted only to those most trustworthy to the provider, as they had to be sure the debt would be repaid. Nomadic groups helped each other out in this manner because the group holding the region of land next to you, was generally your family.

The system you speak of, regarding villages, was an equal distribution model used early on in the permanent settlement, agricultural human villages. The nomadic groups began to settle down and build permanent villages. Each of the members of the small group would be assigned a specific crop to grow, and men would form hunting parties for meat. Upon harvest time, each person would bring a predetermined amount of their specific crop to the group and everyone would share. Refusal to comply meant you were ostracized from the entire clan. All though this was indeed a verbal contract and equal distribution, it was also a type of barter system.

Well, right from the beginning I have problems.
You say "money" is one thing, your reference says something completely different.

You say: "Money defines as -- "The assets, property or resources owned by someone or something. Also known as 'Wealth'."
Your reference says "But money is a general term for any object that is accepted as payment for goods and services. Today, most of our money is currency. "

That is quite a difference.
Property is not accepted as payment at any store I know of.
According to your reference, credit cards are money, they can be used to buy things. Putting that with your meaning, credit cards are wealth. Ridiculous.

Wait, it gets better.
Your source tells us what money was like in 12000 BC. I have my doubts about their claims, since that is before recorded history, so I wanted to check the source. A first to do that is to look at other works by the author.
Surprise! No author is listed.
Wait, it gets better.

Where I would generally find the author information, at the end of the article, I find this:
"Our goal with any review is to combine objective data with subjective opinions."

You should have been taught in school that subjective opinion pieces don't do squat for bolstering your argument.
I really could not care less about subjective opinion posts by unknown authors.

As is common on DDO, I offer credible references - you can disregard Wikipedia, I provided two other references - and you provide opinions.
On top of that, you and your references can not even agree on the meaning of basic terms being discussed.

You do tell a good fairy tale, I'll give you that.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 1:05:41 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
I was looking over that other reference of yours, about ancient Greece and their economic system, and you know how many times it mentions "currency"
If you said Zero, you would be right.

So, according to you, and your reference, ancient Greece did not have - currency - as distinct from 'money'.
You know, those round things that Jesus held up and said "Render unto Ceaser........."
Guess they did not really exist, if we are to believe you, and your references.