Really enjoying the series by @real_vijay 3rd part is my fav part so far
The 4 evolution stages of any monetary goods:
1. Collectible
2. Store-of-value
3. Medium-of-Exchange
4. Unit-of-Accounthttps://medium.com/@vijayb_24615/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoin-part-3-of-4-2e2c002593f1 …
-
Show this thread
-
@real_vijay the only thing I'm not sure of, is the barter theory of the Origins of Money (Part 1). Isn't that a myth? Graeber also wrote about it in his book 'Debt: the first 5,000 Years'
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ …2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @hugohanoi
That's a very controversial topic in monetary history and theory. I think Graeber is incorrect but it's a subject worthy of another four articles in and of itself!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @real_vijay
Indeed! Or 4 books
I guess part of it has to do with the fact that it's extremely difficult to collect ethnographic evidence in early societies. So most Origins-of-Money theories are conjectures, very hard to say anything conclusive.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi
Yup. I think the idea of trust-based arrangements that Graeber argues for can only possibly make sense for very geographically limited scope. Basically for people who already know and trust each other. It does not explain how trade happened between antagonistic parties.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @real_vijay
I think
@davidgraeber did consider the trades between antagonistic / distant parties, but his argument is that those trades would not lead the emergence of money, or a sustained trade system involving some sort of common money
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"All this is not to say that barter never occurs... But it typically occurs between strangers, people who have no moral relations with one another... Still there is no reason to believe such barter would ever lead to the emergence of money."https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/david-graeber-on-the-invention-of-money-%E2%80%93-notes-on-sex-adventure-monomaniacal-sociopathy-and-the-true-function-of-economics.html …
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @davidgraeber
It's an interesting point but what he's saying is that antagonistic parties always had exactly what each other wanted at the time of trade and deferred trade never happened. I find that highly implausible
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
