I disagree that paper can be money. While gold and silver aren't the only forms of money they are a form of it. Basically, the issue is that money must inherently have some value. Paper burns, but metal normally doesn't.
It's a complete mindfuck that some of the most respected historical authorities on subjects still taught today were basically bullshitting half the time lmao great video :]
"Barter always requires a double coincidence of wants" Hence the invention of money, which removes market barriers bc money is fungible and thus the double coincidence of wants is always there, which btw is just a fancy way of saying subjective theory of value. In any market exchange both the seller and buyer consent to the transaction bc each values what they will receive more than what they will trade. "This world of bater sounds inconvenient" Yeah...that is why money exists...to avoid that inconvience. It's not made up that a barter system would create barriers in the market, and it is not irrational to conclude that is why a fungible store of value was created. The reason why there would be "no evidence of a bater economy" is bc there would be no record keeping of a barter exchanges. But a barter economy just means any exchange of goods or services in a market that does not involve a system of fungible store of value...and a barter economy would necessarily be the unavoidable default between a mutual and consensual trade. Unless you are saying there was no mutually consensual exchange prior to money? Which is far more absurd than bater economies IMO. Money was invented around the time that agriculture and domestication of livestock was evented, which just so happens to be around the time debt/credit and economic record keeping was invented. This bc it was the first time human culture began to experience surplus that required quantification and it became necessary to keep track of what surplus belonged to who. I don't think you understand the barter "myth" as you put it. It is not a myth at all. It is the logical consequence of how a market would necessarily operate in the absence of money. So either you must argue that money has always existed, that before money there was never a mutually consensual trade, or concede that at some point, in order to reduce bairers in the market, a system of fungible store of value was created. So no...money is not the result of state, unless you want to argue that the state is the result of surplus. Which would be far more valid an argument than trying to suggest that mutual trade without money could exist without a barter economy.
Graeber? Graeber!!! That's such a good read. And its so satisfying to see it inspire more digestible media. And you've added to my reading list? Thanks comrade!
I was literally just thinking while doing something else before starting video "I'm guessing this means 1Dime just finished reading Debt and wanted to make a video about it?"
"Barter always requires a double coincidence of wants" Hence the invention of money, which removes market barriers bc money is fungible and thus the double coincidence of wants is always there, which btw is just a fancy way of saying subjective theory of value. In any market exchange both the seller and buyer consent to the transaction bc each values what they will receive more than what they will trade. "This world of bater sounds inconvenient" Yeah...that is why money exists...to avoid that inconvience. It's not made up that a barter system would create barriers in the market, and it is not irrational to conclude that is why a fungible store of value was created. The reason why there would be "no evidence of a bater economy" is bc there would be no record keeping of a barter exchanges. But a barter economy just means any exchange of goods or services in a market that does not involve a system of fungible store of value...and a barter economy would necessarily be the unavoidable default between a mutual and consensual trade. Unless you are saying there was no mutually consensual exchange prior to money? Which is far more absurd than bater economies IMO. Money was invented around the time that agriculture and domestication of livestock was evented, which just so happens to be around the time debt/credit and economic record keeping was invented. This bc it was the first time human culture began to experience surplus that required quantification and it became necessary to keep track of what surplus belonged to who. I don't think you understand the barter "myth" as you put it. It is not a myth at all. It is the logical consequence of how a market would necessarily operate in the absence of money. So either you must argue that money has always existed, that before money there was never a mutually consensual trade, or concede that at some point, in order to reduce bairers in the market, a system of fungible store of value was created. So no...money is not the result of state, unless you want to argue that the state is the result of surplus. Which would be far more valid an argument than trying to suggest that mutual trade without money could exist without a barter economy. So no...not nonsense at all.
Barter theory doesnt make any sense anyway, what are you going to do? Trade grain and wheat for grain and wheat? Or does one farmer travel with coin while the other stays behind and farms?
Yeah but how was it a myth? We know barter existed and this is one point where I have to disagree with 10 cents on. It's obvious that for thousands of years various forms of barter certainly had to exist and then one day somebody decided to simplify this by using an easier smaller medium of exchange perhaps invented by the people perhaps invented by whatever passed for government at the time. Barter definitely existed from time immemorial there was trade between people. On some of these things you got to use your common sense.
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 The video doesn't dispute that bartering ever happened at all. It disputes the narrative that it was the basis for an entire economy first and then money somehow springs out of such. No-one has ever found evidence for a whole economic system based on bartering. Or that a batering economic system predated money. For every ancient society/civilisation the oldest forms of writing found are always recorded tallies of transactions. i.e money always starts as an abstract tool to track debt. The video later explains that bartering comes about as a contingency when someone doesn't currently have access to currency.
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 Common sense and intuition are usually not good indicators of objective reality. I definitely used to believe bartering existed because it feels intuitive. But likely that is simply someone trying to retrofit ideas to explain something we don't have knowledge of. Just like the idea that people in the past were somehow extremely dumb (they weren't) when really they had knowledge of what they could but access was limited. The human ability to learn hasn't changed as much as people like to believe.
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999, aww. come on. Commit all the way. Be magnanimous. The facts are that money is NOT a substitute for barter, but rather a form of IOU, normally from the state. If you ever had a commercial loan or mortgage, you have, in effect, created a monetary instrument.
You say there's no straightforward story but go on to describe what sounds like a pretty straightforward story to me: money was invented by empires so people would have something to pay taxes with and so they would have a quantifiable unit to do their accounting with. If anything it's a more straightforward and much easier to imagine story than Smith and Aristotle's libertarianesque fever dream. Tbh, now that I think about it libertarianism is essentially an entire ideology based on a fairy tale which a long dead economist lifted from a long dead philosopher who admitted he was straight up "winging it." Well, now we know who to blame for all this bitcoin hyping neckbeards who bitch about age of consent laws. Thanks Aristotle!
My take away is that both arose simultaneously. Money = coercion, based on debt. That type of ethereal coercion is more stable than one based on violence, or faith. Coercion through violence requires a monopoly on violence, which is more difficult to achieve or maintain in smaller community where the coerced can collaborate to overcome its coercion. Another weakness of coercion through violence is that it creates a stiff, physical hierarchy. One where the dominant monopolist of violence is at all time a threat to its subordinates, who are usually in greater numbers. Coercion based on debt on the other hand creates a faith-based hierarchy, where "he who owns debt" can be told it is due to personal failure. (Liberal Economics, or a cult of sin.) And this failure is more easy to accept, because when one finds themselves in need to take on debt, they must take on a submissive state of weakness, conceived from on one's poverty of need. Therefore, it can be conceived that the earliest form of proto-money, actually is the I.O.U.. Where one person - or a group of people - found themselves in need of resources which another person (or group) had, but did not - or could not - give away without the need to formalize a return of favour. "I'll scratch your back, if you promise to scratch mine in the future." Virtual money probably only took form after IOUs were broken, or feared to not be followed-up on. (Ergo, through fear or mistrust.) And this system, in combination with other forms of coercion, is then used to create a pliable community of super coercion. Especially when the state has a monopoly on all three forms of coercion: Faith, (religion) violence (military) and debt (monetary). Which you'll find were the norm in the earliest state-like civilisations in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Yellow River, which were run by patriarchal, Warlord God-kings, or Priest-kings leading a hero / warrior cult.
excellent video, thank you for the suggestion! link for those who want to check it out: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-99NeV_0gNHs.html
Thanks for the video! Another thing that I often think about, and one Graeber explores in his book, is how it's fairly intuitive that things belong to various categories between which exchange should be either very limited or completely impossible. The obvious example that is widely accepted is human life (though the exchange of time for money undermines that, and legal systems attempt to quantify lives when dishing out penalties), but we can also think of housing, land or, more recently, carbon emissions. How can an entity pay tax on carbon emissions if there is no way of using that tax revenue to extract the carbon dioxide back from the air, and the revenue is also woefully insufficient to pay for environmental damages (especially those far removed in time)? If money is a way of measuring things against each other, we should agree that certain things should not be compared. We think so naturally in every other aspect of life, but the propagandized abstraction of finance and the economy somehow tricks people into believing that money is an exception, a cheat code you can use to trade for everything, including abstract concepts and things over which we have no control. Graeber does a great job discussing this in his book.
Money is magic. It is mana. It is "medicine". It is illusion. It is alchemy, wizardry, sorcery, rune-casting, omen-reading, enchantment, and even necromancy. Economists and financiers are the wizards and court magicians of our day, both predicting and controlling (as much as such things are possible) the outcomes of wars, the success or failure of crops, and great ventures. They tell us what sacrifices the powers beyond demand, and claim to reveal what favors those powers are prepared to grant to us. And just like magic ... its not really "real" ... but that doesn't stop it from "working".
2:04 I do like that you say “it’s not just backed by faith” because your definitely on to something by not completely rejecting that part of what makes money work as social construct is faith based. If by social construct we mean social phenomena that are constituted by social relations, contingent on historical developments outside of which it cannot exist, then what holds our collective understanding of this thing, that has a reality that far proceeds our own contact with it, has to be something a kin to faith. If we situate MMT in relation to political theology, which accounts for how our hard and brute political concepts (legislative, executive, and juridical) have their origins in religious and theological contexts, it’s hard to accept this. It’s not be coincidence that sovereign currency are called “fiat” currency, fiat which literally translates from Latin as “let it be done” GOOD JOB!
Niiiiiceh! I find it funny how histroy often comes with this footage where a camera goes through an ancient maps with cool looking tools on it. Nice use of "Paper Please"-Sound. :D Great use of sound overall. Not over the top but with an intent in mind.
Antropological evidence? What are you talking about? There are still exchanges in 3rd worlds villages (less and less thease days) as product for product, or labour time for labour time. And guess what? The most common form of B2B bartering in modern economies involves the trading of advertising rights (no money exchanged). You seriously need to chek your facts if you want to do documentaries. This way you only give one sided opinion, that is strongly feeding on creators bias.
You need to either make longer videos or more videos. I can't tell you what your previous video was about or how long ago it came out. You have a pretty solid fan base that would be easily built on and turned into an extremely profitable stream of money for you if you engaged with them longer via longer videos or more of them. Once you reach the point where you can actually finance your lifestyle from the videos you do easily then maybe you could dial back on the time your engaging with your viewers and maybe not have to worry about losing so many that it effects your wallet. But what do I know you could be at that point or further now and that's why you release videos the way you do it'd sure explain why!
Another myth going down! You can't imagine how often I talked to people about this topic. I start by questioning the value of money. Then, they invariably present to me the barter theory in a one-liner (as if I hadn't heard it before) - "But it would be quite inconvenient to exchange chickens for cows all the time, huh?". Then, the discussion actually already has ended for them, as if they had somehow delivered a final proof of why money is the best thing ever. Well, usually I at least have time for the closing line of "Well, maybe there is a third way besides money and barter?"
Its crazy how this isn't taught more in schools, this is what happens when people with agendas win the battle/war. They rewrite history only for people to have to rediscover again.
Wow, this is quite possibly the best 12-minute introduction to chartalism that I have come across online. It's ridiculous that it has less than 10K views.
I think you mean...charlatanism. "Barter always requires a double coincidence of wants" Hence the invention of money, which removes market barriers bc money is fungible and thus the double coincidence of wants is always there, which btw is just a fancy way of saying subjective theory of value. In any market exchange both the seller and buyer consent to the transaction bc each values what they will receive more than what they will trade. "This world of bater sounds inconvenient" Yeah...that is why money exists...to avoid that inconvience. It's not made up that a barter system would create barriers in the market, and it is not irrational to conclude that is why a fungible store of value was created. The reason why there would be "no evidence of a bater economy" is bc there would be no record keeping of a barter exchanges. But a barter economy just means any exchange of goods or services in a market that does not involve a system of fungible store of value...and a barter economy would necessarily be the unavoidable default between a mutual and consensual trade. Unless you are saying there was no mutually consensual exchange prior to money? Which is far more absurd than bater economies IMO. Money was invented around the time that agriculture and domestication of livestock was evented, which just so happens to be around the time debt/credit and economic record keeping was invented. This bc it was the first time human culture began to experience surplus that required quantification and it became necessary to keep track of what surplus belonged to who. I don't think you understand the barter "myth" as this vid put it. It is not a myth at all. It is the logical consequence of how a market would necessarily operate in the absence of money. So either you must argue that money has always existed, that before money there was never a mutually consensual trade, or concede that at some point, in order to reduce bairers in the market, a system of fungible store of value was created. So no...money is not the result of state, unless you want to argue that the state is the result of surplus. Which would be far more valid an argument than trying to suggest that mutual trade without money could exist without a barter economy. This vid is the result of what happens when you priotize agenda over critical thinking.
Honestly, I can only think of a few cultural examples of "barter" but they don't reflect the common myth about bartering. There are instances (even up to this day with some groups that have developed or indigenous peoples) of different cultural groups/tribes/whatever you like to call them at usually specific times of year or seasons traveling or meeting up to trade already pre-specified items, like per se two islands an hour or two boat ride's away trading potatoes and oysters, or two villages with different major crop yields. Sometimes these are even exchanged in more of a gift economy type way, where they will each give each other as much of their excess yield as they can spare rather than bartering at all. This however doesn't reflect the entire economy of either cultural group (often both of which will use money, and often different currencies) and doesn't reflect the individual-to-individual barter myth. It's one of the few times a double coincidence regularly occurs. It's almost closer to what Noncompete describes in terms of contracts between companies/corporations today exchanging goods and services directly through contracts rather than exchanging money. It's just an unwritten cultural contract understood by both parties.
"Barter always requires a double coincidence of wants" Hence the invention of money, which removes market barriers bc money is fungible and thus the double coincidence of wants is always there, which btw is just a fancy way of saying subjective theory of value. In any market exchange both the seller and buyer consent to the transaction bc each values what they will receive more than what they will trade. "This world of bater sounds inconvenient" Yeah...that is why money exists...to avoid that inconvience. It's not made up that a barter system would create barriers in the market, and it is not irrational to conclude that is why a fungible store of value was created. The reason why there would be "no evidence of a bater economy" is bc there would be no record keeping of a barter exchanges. But a barter economy just means any exchange of goods or services in a market that does not involve a system of fungible store of value...and a barter economy would necessarily be the unavoidable default between a mutual and consensual trade. Unless you are saying there was no mutually consensual exchange prior to money? Which is far more absurd than bater economies IMO. Money was invented around the time that agriculture and domestication of livestock was evented, which just so happens to be around the time debt/credit and economic record keeping was invented. This bc it was the first time human culture began to experience surplus that required quantification and it became necessary to keep track of what surplus belonged to who. I don't think you understand the barter "myth" as you put it. It is not a myth at all. It is the logical consequence of how a market would necessarily operate in the absence of money. So either you must argue that money has always existed, that before money there was never a mutually consensual trade, or concede that at some point, in order to reduce bairers in the market, a system of fungible store of value was created. So no...money is not the result of state, unless you want to argue that the state is the result of surplus. Which would be far more valid an argument than trying to suggest that mutual trade without money could exist without a barter economy.
@@memegazer The "barter myth" is the myth that large scale barter economies existed... That there was some kind of or is some kind of "state" before money, just as there is the myth of the "state of nature" before "civilization" and "laws" and "governments" existed. These are thought experiments, or ways to think about human or economic relations, they do not have direct evidence of archaeological evidence or scientific bearing. Sure, barter might happen on either a small scale where money doesn't make sense to use or neither really have money to exchange (or use different currencies), or in the example I mentioned, which can also often reflect corporate contracts and international trade (although often money can be exchanged for the latter as well, rather than direct goods, but direct goods may also be exchanged) but often these are not necessarily examples of what we think of as bartering. Each party agrees how much these things are worth in their respective currencies. They often have written contracts to trade certain amounts of these goods (occasionally services but almost always goods on this scale), sometimes even written into the contract based on the fluctuating prices in their or the other's respective currency (or based on the ratio of them). And this may happen on a regular basis. Monthly, annually, decade, whatever. It's a regular trade that each party already knows what is wanted, and it may even be locked in for a certain amount of time so even if the other party decides they don't need it anymore, they can't just draw out until the contract is up. Bartering via the barter myth is well i have x and i need y so i gotta find someone who has y that needs x. I.e., the double coincidence problem, without an external unit (or units) that decides how much each of those things are worth. There is no reason to believe these transactions wouldn't be recorded. If people want to keep track of the number of livestock they have to make sure they don't lose any and they trade some, they would record a bartering transaction. Same if someone is trying to record how bountiful their harvests are. It is silly to assume we would record monetary transactions but not ones that would utilize direct trades. There are all sorts of reasons people would still want to record numbers. Again, this isn't to say people didn't directly trade or barter with each other, particularly if they DIDN'T have money--this sort of thing of exchanging items and favors happens even today. The myth is that there is some mythical time before money and some marked time after it, and that widespread barter economies existed all at the same time and then money came along and solved everything.
@@FoxyFemBoi Again there would be no evidence of a barter system. And again...either you must argue that money has always existed, that there was no mutual trade prior to money, or concede that in the absence of money there will be a barter system. It is not a myth, it is a logical consequence of the absence of money. It is also not a myth that bc money if fungible it reduces barriers that would exist in a barter economy. That is not a myth. And I already explained why those transactions were not recorded...bc they did not involve surplus...agriculture and domestication of animals is when record keeping began, and it is argued, rationally so, that it was because surplus needed to be quantified.
@@memegazer Lol I already said why there could be evidence of a barter system. And the "agricultural revolution" (which happened over like 3k years anyway and is a bit of a misnomer) happened a good 4000 to 6000 years before the invention of writing and written records. We have evidence of methods of "monetary" exchange before this, as well as in societies that were either not or only partially agriculturally based, or societies which were partially or fully nomadic. The "myth" is what you're taught in schools or the idea that entire economies were based on this. In smaller nomadic societies, barter wasn't necessary as generally everything was shared within your unit. Barter or forms of annual contract trade might occur between nomadic groups, or even types of gifting economies. But barter is NOT the only way for an economy to function in the absence of money lmao. Contract economies, shared economies, and gifting economies are all types of economies that can exist within larger structures or as primary types of economies themselves without money. You need to a) broaden your imagination a little on how economies can be shaped (ie not everyone holding onto their own shit and trying to trade between each other super inefficiently) and b) understand that the barter myth is not about bartering literally never happening lol. It's about a mythical state before money, whereas barter can happen within monetary economies, and there is no specific special time with or without money in history. Including before or after what you might call the agricultural revolution as we have evidence for "hunter gatherer" societies using some form of currency to at least trade between each other. That's what I TRIED to explain about the barter myth in the previous comment but I guess it sailed right past you or in one ear and out the other. If you actually watched this video, it also explains that's what the barter myth actually is. Not that barter never exists. Just that entire economies don't tend to be built on it because that's completely impractical.
@@FoxyFemBoi First you are going to write a wall of text...use formating so it is legible. Second...no it is not a barter system is not a myth. Again unless you are arguing there was no mutual trade or money always existed. So again...not a myth. Barter systems create barriers in the market that money does not...again no myth. These are logical consequences...not myths. What is a myth...that the big bad state came along and tricked people to use money bc of taxes...that is absurd and has zero evidence. Also there is plenty of evidence supporting that agriculture is the reason why recorded keeping began...look it up.
"I'll give you ten chickens for that cow." "Wait. I don't need any chickens but lets say these 3 bits of shiny rock I found are each _worth_ ten chickens. "
7:08 Great video, but I'm not sure this analogy is apt. Music, math, and writing are all human inventions, and each has its own "origin story". The fact that each is an abstract social construct and not a tangible physical object doesn't mean it wasn't invented. In fact, with regard to math, we can tell a very specific origin story with detailed dates, places, and individuals.
Was there not a time before money, when say, people in a small tribe would hunt, fish, pick berries, etc, and then at the end of the day share the food so everyone had something to eat? Did that happen? Would that be called an economy?
Some anthropologists think Primitive Communism existed before agricultural societies came to dominate. Yes you’re right, but it was not a barter economy. This was before labor itself was divided, people held similar roles in these egalitarian clans and tribe formations. I would say that’s essentially pre-historic. Sure it was communistic, but the problem is Money And Class Society did mot emerge out of THESE societies. It emerged out of later stratified agricultural societies with much larger populations and more sedentary lifestyles. Also keep in mind Primitive communism is not the same as industrial communism in the modern class stratified globalist world
The problem with the argument as a whole, whether for or against currency as an extension of barter, is that the entire subject of economics really doesn't apply to pre-agrarian civilizations in the first place (and honestly 75-90% of modern economics principles are only applicable past the medieval period). You don't have a "barter economy" or a "gift economy" when it's just "we gave some of the food we found to our extended family because they didn't find anything" and likewise you wouldn't have money developing as a conscious extension of any economic system. You'd just have a steadily progression of complexity and at some point the idea of a physical representation of that complexity is either adapted for the sake of making the record-keeping less of a headache, or else a pre-existing item that already has value is adapted to suit that role. The former is basically Smith's and Aristotle's hypotheses minus the assumption that a large-scale economy HAD to exist beforehand, i.e. the basic infrastructure of an economy as we'd know it develops in a society and some abstract item comes to fill a functional role within it (example: an early agrarian society using clay tablets for recordkeeping, the tablets themselves becoming important objects being traded around and collected). The latter theory is instead the idea of "ooh shiny" being the foundation of currency systems instead (example: a small village valuing gold for jewelry purposes beginning to trade them around as the village grows in size and complexity). Most likely both outcomes have happened independently at different places and times depending on the situation, as any given region develops more complex infrastructure.
Other people may have mentioned this, but another example is how most prison economies work. Most prisons do not allow prisoners to have anything that would be considered physical money. So you would think that prisoners would finally be the place to find the mythical barter economy. But that is not the case, prisoners just use another item that is available (tobacco, coffee, stamps, etc.) for money. If the prison bans that item, then prisoners just switched to some other item to use as money.
One only needs to look at one state's history for an example of a barter economy: Hawai'i before colonization, under its Ahupuaʻa system. Eurocentric, racist "intellectuals" always overlook non-Western & non-white economic systems.
BS 1) accounting was earlier. Sure people got allotments within states but that is hardly money 2) most trade was between states as tribute or “gifts” 3) coins were created to pay Greek mercenaries (in a sense the oldest profession) often coins are accepted regardless of origin because of their perceived Metal value. These are found everywhere so on a ledger. The states legitimize its authenticity and purity (often lying) regardless way before 1783. What you speak of are allotments by state ran economies which are not the same as money. The irony is money allows you to bypass the system and not rely on who you know on a micro and sometimes meso level. This is precisely why it is controlled by the state on a macro level.
This video is a little disappointing. The basis of our monetary system is fractional reserve banking. That "fraction" coming from when people used to hold gold for others, issuing certificates for gold exchange, without moving the gold. When these gold keepers discovered they could issue more certificats than the gold they had on hand, Fractional Reserve banking was created. The big new news about fractional reserve banking, is that two years ago, the required fraction fell to zero percent, no fraction at all required. That should have made headlines in every news broadcast on earth. But it didn't. This topic deserves more discussion.
Class conflict, also referred to as class struggle and class warfare, is the political tension and economic antagonism that exists in society because of socio-economic competition among the social classes or between rich and poor.forms of class conflict include direct violence such as wars for resources and cheap labor, assassinations or revolution; indirect violence such as deaths from poverty and starvation, illness and unsafe working conditions; and economic coercion such as the threat of unemployment or the withdrawal of investment capital; or ideologically, by way of political literature. Additionally, political forms of class warfare include: legal and illegal lobbying, and bribery of legislators
Another myth I’d love to hear busted is how social assistance is somehow a direct transfer of cash from taxpayers. Fiscal conservatives would have an aneurysm if it came out that taxes actually keep free market economies running.
Barter story is not false dude. Just go back to hunter gatherers, either you get food or you die. Barter comes later, in small groups or cities, has a beginning of commodities. We don't let each other die by providing food to the less agile in exchange for some other service. This would be a good video if you did not forget that... Or incorporate in your logic. Make bridge between times of hunting and money. It is not always there like you said. And music, music has always been here.
Commodities were free, or rather didn't cost money. If you wanted to eat=hunt or gather. If you needed shelter=find a cave or use bones, leather, or sticks. But we can't do this nowadays cause of the laws concerning land, territories etc. And that everything costs money. But the barter system still existed back then.
Today I learned the word barter and what it means in my native language. The concept was easy to understand (so I guessed what it meant) but damn after all those years I hadn't heard of this word lol
While I can certainly agree that a barter system was not preeminent, I think you focus a bit too strongly on the role of the state in the creation and legitimation of money, especially via taxation as the mechanism by which demand for money is manufactured. I could easily reverse the script and ask the following: if the state solely creates demand for money via taxation, then how do you explain the use-value of money as a universal equivalent? Clearly as a use-value for exchange, money in some form is necessitated. In order to exchange, money must be demanded by both parties. So there is now a twofold demand: the state demands tax, the person demands exchange. I understand you are now obsessed with modern monetary theory, but I am still unconvinced of its merit.
Currency has no use-value. It is a record of a liability. Taxes create unemployment and markets. What the state will pay for a particular amount of labor decides the value of commodities. Citizens must aquire particular currencies to satisfy their tax liability.
@@RealProgressInAction The usefulness of money is precisely that it facilitates the exchange of commodities. This can be said to be it's use-value (to corrupt the precise marxian definitions). Money cannot denote liability between parties as it is simply the realization of universal value which is exchanged. It seems you don't have a solid footing in the labour theory of value, which is fine, but the assertion that the state determines the value of commodities via the price they demand be payed to a worker is beyond absurd, it's a pure fetish. A total misunderstanding. It also seems you take taxation as being immanent. That is: it seems you take taxation to be the first thing and everything else to follow. I urge you to discard this absurdity! Take a look through another lense. Start with a wage then end at the tax. The worker gets payed, they spend some money, they pay taxes as the governments "share". Whatever legitimation narrative there is for taxation might be moot for you, but it is still a necessary view that taxation is secondary in this frame. Therefore: taxation as a necessity for legitimation of state currency is absurd. Currency is demanded twofold by both the 1) elements of the economy and 2) the state. It is not a black and white relation..
@@BiggFanDDD Why would you start with wage? That presumes the currency's preexistence. You have to start with where the money originates to begin with. The worker cannot get paid with what doesn't exist and the government cannot collect its "share" (as you put it) without having issued the currency first. For a simple analogy, when you go see a movie, do they collect the ticket first or issue it first?
I have a copy of "Blood and Money", it is enlightening because it illustrates how it likely was created as a tool to subjugate more than anything else.
Ugh my cousin tried debating me with this "post modern" Marxist nonsense. Bunch of self important fart smelling. It would take a novel to write down all the false "logic" and contradictions in this video.
Bartering might never have been an official government or socially recognised method of trading, but, I guarantee 100% that bartering has taken place at a local level, one to one for a long time. I have bartered my time and skills in return for the same in value from another person.
Wait, are you saying that just because the earliest known example of writing had to do with debt, all of writing was invented for that specific reason? seems sus.
We kinda know tho.... first they appeared as debt (payment for work), like if you work for me then i give you this thing which represent my payment for you (which will be returned for crops when they grow up). First writtings of money is exactly this, they literally represent how much landowner is obliged to pay. But modern concept of money developed from taxes. King says you have to pay me this amount of money, so money naturally extend into other aspects of society because everyone needs them to pay taxes. Oh and the king is the only one who prints more money lol.
I disagree. You skip over the topic of natural money such as seashells, which do not need state approval. Max Weber, in _Economy and Society_ , distinguishes between the medium of exchange and the medium in which taxes are paid. Also, taxes were often paid "in kind", i.e., without money.
Yo this video was helpful and learning. but let me tell y'all something about money. I hate money or earnings sometimes because it's not far and it has rules 😡😔
Well this was 99 percent correct- pre state indigenous societies also used money to account for personal debts - often settled long after the debt was accrued. Their money might have been in the form of certain shells, cocoa, cattle, or even slaves.
There is also likley to be both good science and myths that protect power anywhere they make money or protect themselves on. Critical thinking and curiosity recently is how you do
Thks & but, but, ... ; An owner giving his inventory or accounting tokens/receipts to some else in exchange for something is the perfect genesis of money.
Most societies before civilisation were gift economies and primitive communist societies, once society transitioned into vertical hierarchical societies, it necessitated various forms of money as an accounting tool It’s quite simple, really
Thank you at long last a truthfull vid on money sick of seeing vids lying about bartering etc it was invented for power ie you can’t pay your rent I will take your daughter instead
"They won't tell you what it's worth in chickens ... But in whatever you use for your local currency." What if the local currency is Chickens tho'? Also RIP David Graeber. Gonna miss him.
But why create money in the first place everything in the world was already ours everyone should’ve had what the needed idk ig we are just very selfish and didn’t want others to have certain things rather for them to earn it instead
States come and go, but gold is still here. Because the state eventually sticks its hand in the free money jar one too many times causing hyperinflation.
It is interesting, I am a follower of your channel but in the last about half a year no any new video of yours popped up on my youtube home page, only this morning the newest one…
The only barter I believe in is Barter 6 😤. All jokes aside this is a very accessible and eye opening video. Appreciate you completely debunking everything I thought I knew about money once again.
I came into this playlist with a "taxation is theft"-mindset. - Now three videos in, I'm coming away so far with a "taxation is theft and slavery to the government"-mindset.
Taxation is theft, and domination. Funny enough, Karl Marx believed in the abolition of all income tax. Did not think that people who live primarily from their own labor should pay tax. You should check out my video on the stock market
Sorry, your stance is unconvincing. You express the difficulties of barter and explain the reasons why money would have replaced it, but state that it's nonsense, while at the same time your own answer to how money was developed is literally, "I don't know, the government probably." You're challenging the old narrative but not offering any rational replacement. You're demanding anthropological evidence on one side, but just fine with taking assumptions that support your own stance. It's bias at a minimum, and by your own admition, it offers no replacement.
It's not "my stance". Its taken straight from the critically acclaimed book Debt:The First 5000 Years by Anthropologist David Graeber, which goes over all of the most updated evidence in anthropology regarding the history of currency.
I noticed the "papers please" voices. Just a suggestion, call the "libertarian goldbugs" merely "right wing libertarians", in most of the world Libertarian implies what Americans call "left libertarians". It's one of America's many bastardisations of the English language. Just a suggestion for people at large, that is we should shift from Americanisms to using English in its international form.
I understand that many people get confused by dialects, it's like when I say I'm a Republican and people are confused. It's like, chill, I mean I don't want there to be a monarchy, not that I want Trump to become king.
Can't believe humans never used a barter system. It seems impossible that wasn't so. Even as a child, I bartered stuff. With no access to money, how to exchange goods?
