Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

The Fiat fairy tale

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:23:43 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.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:57:23 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 2:23:43 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.

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.

The question becomes, if given a choice what type of money or currency would people voluntarily select (violence backed government debt fiat currency, private debt backed, commodity backed, crypto secured, or something else)?

Governments should repeal legal tender laws, and let individuals decide what is the best type of money.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 4:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 6:57:23 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:23:43 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.

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.

The question becomes, if given a choice what type of money or currency would people voluntarily select (violence backed government debt fiat currency, private debt backed, commodity backed, crypto secured, or something else)?

Governments should repeal legal tender laws, and let individuals decide what is the best type of money.

It is rather evident there is no best as it all depends upon what one is trying to accomplish. Even Bitcoin has severe issues with privacy. Individuals are often not in the best position to decide due to lack of information and lack of foresight of unintended consequences. Group psychology proves time and time again that groups can be very undependable with quality decisions.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 12:07:27 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 4:09:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 6:57:23 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:23:43 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.

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.

The question becomes, if given a choice what type of money or currency would people voluntarily select (violence backed government debt fiat currency, private debt backed, commodity backed, crypto secured, or something else)?

Governments should repeal legal tender laws, and let individuals decide what is the best type of money.

It is rather evident there is no best as it all depends upon what one is trying to accomplish. Even Bitcoin has severe issues with privacy. Individuals are often not in the best position to decide due to lack of information and lack of foresight of unintended consequences. Group psychology proves time and time again that groups can be very undependable with quality decisions.

There would be a best currency for an individual. A person would be able to select a currency that fits their own wants without interference from a group.

Lack of information and foresight are easily corrected by a user. I am sure that people would quickly learn which types of currencies are superior and which are less desirable.

Those that support government fiat currency understand that it is a very undesirable when compared to other options. The idea of competition to fiat currency is considered a threat that must be destroyed with violent laws.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 12:26:42 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/22/2016 12:23:46 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Interesting thread. Much better than the pro/anti trump junk.

Yes. I've posted a few trying to turn the conversation.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 2:22:03 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/22/2016 12:07:27 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 4:09:10 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 6:57:23 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 11/21/2016 2:23:43 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.

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.

The question becomes, if given a choice what type of money or currency would people voluntarily select (violence backed government debt fiat currency, private debt backed, commodity backed, crypto secured, or something else)?

Governments should repeal legal tender laws, and let individuals decide what is the best type of money.

It is rather evident there is no best as it all depends upon what one is trying to accomplish. Even Bitcoin has severe issues with privacy. Individuals are often not in the best position to decide due to lack of information and lack of foresight of unintended consequences. Group psychology proves time and time again that groups can be very undependable with quality decisions.

There would be a best currency for an individual. A person would be able to select a currency that fits their own wants without interference from a group.

Lack of information and foresight are easily corrected by a user. I am sure that people would quickly learn which types of currencies are superior and which are less desirable.

Those that support government fiat currency understand that it is a very undesirable when compared to other options. The idea of competition to fiat currency is considered a threat that must be destroyed with violent laws.

There is plenty of options. Gold, silver, electronic, rare art, etc. The problem is adoption. You can make the best choice for yourself all you want but if the people and companies you transact with don't use it you don't have much of a choice.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 2:02:14 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/22/2016 12:26:42 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:23:46 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Interesting thread. Much better than the pro/anti trump junk.

Yes. I've posted a few trying to turn the conversation.

I've been trying for a month! Lol
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 2:56:24 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/22/2016 2:02:14 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:26:42 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/22/2016 12:23:46 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Interesting thread. Much better than the pro/anti trump junk.

Yes. I've posted a few trying to turn the conversation.

I've been trying for a month! Lol

Lol!
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 10:21:14 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
I used to drive a FIAT. It looked sporty, but it was essentially a pile of scrap metal with a license plate on it.