The Invention of Money

Aug 2019
305
32
USA
Money predates any systematic social barter system. I use 'money' in the most loose sense.
Communities are believed to be the result of agricultural efforts.
With agriculture came an immediate need for a store of wealth.
Barter satisfies immediate needs, often. It is often useless for providing a store of wealth.


This is prehistoric context, convincing evidence for any reality is thin. Those who would say barter systems predate "money", in the most loose sense, have not evidence, but reasoning.

I find the argument that social man, living in communities, bartered for their daily needs, to be weaker than the argument that clay tablets held a store of wealth from the start of agricultural societies. Archeological evidence supports this theory, even though not convincing in itself.

Bartering is a limited, temporary, specific use system of wealth distribution, that fails to provide the needs of communities. It does not provide key functions of 'money', most notably, a store of wealth.

I would argue that a society can not function without a system of wealth storage that is greater (better) than any proposed barter system. Tallies on a clay tablet is a superb store of wealth system, compared to barter.

Clay tablets were a wonderful means of storing wealth long before recognition of precious metals.
Fiat predates gold as a means to store wealth.
 
Sep 2019
1,048
408
Texas
Money predates any systematic social barter system. I use 'money' in the most loose sense.
Communities are believed to be the result of agricultural efforts.
With agriculture came an immediate need for a store of wealth.
Barter satisfies immediate needs, often. It is often useless for providing a store of wealth.


This is prehistoric context, convincing evidence for any reality is thin. Those who would say barter systems predate "money", in the most loose sense, have not evidence, but reasoning.

I find the argument that social man, living in communities, bartered for their daily needs, to be weaker than the argument that clay tablets held a store of wealth from the start of agricultural societies. Archeological evidence supports this theory, even though not convincing in itself.

Bartering is a limited, temporary, specific use system of wealth distribution, that fails to provide the needs of communities. It does not provide key functions of 'money', most notably, a store of wealth.

I would argue that a society can not function without a system of wealth storage that is greater (better) than any proposed barter system. Tallies on a clay tablet is a superb store of wealth system, compared to barter.

Clay tablets were a wonderful means of storing wealth long before recognition of precious metals.
Fiat predates gold as a means to store wealth.
Excellent reply- the *problem* (IMO) we have today is not the storing of wealth, it's who decides what wealth is and it's value- those in the business of trading goods and services have very little input- those in the business of *creating* money out of thin air have the most input- that creates a discepancy based on *imposed* on the actual providers/producers of the wealth requiring storage- to be charged a user fee is fine, IMO, as long as that's how it's *sold*- when its lied about and called taxes and the tax (user fee) collector has the power and might of the US gov't then it becomes problematic-