Thank you for this, an enlightening perspective. Has economics also overlooked the innate human sense of debt? Surely alongside our moral compass we possess fine faculties for keeping track of our obligations to one another, a monetary compass one might say. Is it this sense of value within community overtime that is subverted by the demand everything be satisfied with cash in the present moment? There’s certainly something very wrong when the current system appears to be piling ever greater levels of debt on the shoulders of the future. Be interesting to learn about the practicalities of what happened during the debt jubilee periods in Roman history, did the authorities use a new coinage to impose order or were the people left more to their own devises, was it a top down or bottom up process?
Simple takeaway is remove money and everyone is incentivized not to barter but be creative creditors which in turn perhaps transforms one’s outlook on the future - what does it look like economically when the supply of creditors exceeds the supply of debtors? Thanks again NEVERMORE crew for provoking insight 🙏
Thanks for your thoughts, Ben. Indeed in ancient systems of “gift economies” there were often cultural expectations of the future repayment of gifts. This seems to have been formalized to some extent particularly in the potlatch system, where one potlatch chief would go to great lengths to make a display of generosity, amid festivities, and the receiving tribe would eventually return the honors, even leading to competition as to which chief could be the most extravagant.
But at a deeper level, there is something that you have hit on which is a sense of indebtedness that we tend naturally to feel whenever gifted with something.
In chapter 5 of debt, Graeber divides economic relationships between people into 3 categories: “communism,” which he defines as “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”; “hierarchy,” where the one who is giving, such as the state or a benefactor is seen as being in a superior position; and exchange. Rather than describing three circumspect, mutually exclusive kinds of relationships, these often intermingle, resulting in complex psychological and social dynamics.
As for systems of jubilee, or the periodic society-wide cancelling of debts, this became common and did not begin in Rome but long before in ancient Sumer. Often a new king, it is told, would cancel all private debt, and would often do so at the beginning of his reign (this did not apply to commercial debts, i.e. debts incurred in commercial transactions). By cancelling private debt, the king gave the impression that society was to get a new start and put himself in a favorable position where the debt/slave system might have otherwise been seen as oppressive and led to revolt. (Hmmm… a great reset of sorts?) Graeber discusses all this in chapter 3 of Debt. I’ve been listening to the audio chapters on Youtube and highly recommend.
Finally, I would like to say how much I like your idea that we could all become “creative creditors” and create a diffuse surplus of credit (abundance, gratitude and a feeling of community) rather than a concentrated debt system where we are lorded over by those who monopolise monetary credit for their exclusive interests.
I’m reminded of the sayings and parables of Jesus, which often talk about debt; especially the parable of a man who wrote off all the debts owed to his master, and thus became a welcome friend.
Jesus suggest we take a different attitude toward money and debt. Christianity was one of those “axial age” religions that sprung up in response to oppressiveness and horror of what Graeber calls the “military-coinage-slavery system” that destroyed traditional relationships based on kindness, trust and communal interdependence. Jesus and the axial age religions, which also included prophetic Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism and the teachings of Confucius, aimed to recover some of what had been lost, opposed war, and despised money. Of course all of these things are interrelated.
it is a topic I also write about, glad to see that you are among the real thinkers of this world. Graeber is corrrect when saying that 80% have useless jobs.
You said it! If a Great Reset would mean the cancellation of all debts, then I'm all for the Great Reset! Although I prefer the term Jubilee...
To take your idea one step further, I'd like to propose that a "social credit system" could actually be preferable to money! Obviously I'm not talking about CBDCs... but a system in which everyone owed each other favours that couldn't be precisely quantified would be great!
Well, apparently the idea of a social credit system has been explored for quite a while. I think Graeber mentions something on those lines.
My first introduction to the term was in relation to where the Chinese are going with mass control and surveillance, so obviously not something we freedom lovers are interested in promoting. But there are definitely other kinds of social credit, and even ones that can be quantified. That’s something Marc Gauvin has been working on with his Money Systems Transparency Alliance and BIBO currency projects. But I think there are other possibilities. I’ll be exploring more of it as we go along.
yes, money is an illusion that make us run after the carrot and the stick while some pocket enormus profits, collude and control us... this is all the subterfuge. Money will never buy freedom for 80% of the population. If yu would like to participate in a podcast about this topic please touch base.
I'm going to continue posting on the subect of money and I think there will be more opportunity for exchange as we go. I think you'll be interested in what's coming, and I look forward to your future engagement.
As for podcasts, I've never participated in one and not sure how I'd do. But let's keep in touch!
I really don't feel like I have any expertise in this area... just a heart feeling and a life of experience in other cultures, especially Latin America, where economic relationships and time itself are treated differently.
Money is a form of social control. This will especially be the case once digital ID'S are attached to personal finances, medical records, and political points of view.
Indeed. Money was first implemented by expanding states and empires, overtaking small communities that functioned more on communal principles and mutual benefit.
I have little confidence in the digital currency fad. I think we need to get back to producing our own necessities and community solidarity. We also need to find ways to "starve the dragon" - reduce our contribution to strengthening the money system in whatever ways we can.
Thanks John. That helps clarify things. My first impression has been that money is a commodity and I realised that the title of this post was somewhat misleading. Graeber even says money was never invented. It just came about as the result of markets, which themselves came about due to expanding states. Prior to states, people living in small communities had no need for money; trading and markets were the result of exchange with strangers, often invading soldiers. When trading with strangers, something equally valued by different parties becomes a popularly exchanged commodity: thus money.
Would you say that is an accurate description of the process?
What states did do was produce and often impose standardized currency in the form of coinage, paper notes or notched sticks. By issuing such currency to soldiers and requiring a percentage to be returned by all members of society, they created a way to both fund wars (a way to purchase foodstuffs for soldiers, etc.) and effect a circular movement of currency (money in "circulation") and to artificially create demand for the currency, especially when they simultaneously prohibited privately issued currency (promissory notes issued by private banks). Of course, now what we have is a public/private partnership monopoly/control of currency.
Question: if a community creates a local currency, at what point does it become illegal, or does it?
There is also another question that comes up. Prior to money in circulation, credit systems already existed: viz. cuneiform accounting tablets recording the transaction of goods - who owes who.
Or were certain goods already seen as a kind of money even at that point? Were transactions annotated in terms of a specific commodity against which all others were measured?
Black Flag (the author) is a very well educated, well read and extraordinarily intelligent(Mensa) anarchist. He's pretty good at making sense of things. I thought you might appreciate those articles, as they address many of the same points.
I think the general idea in how it applies to the subject matter here is that, in a laissez-faire economy where the natural order is left alone to do it's thing, money is whatever commodity is most desired/valued. If government currency is the most desired commodity, then it is so by use of force and therefore has an artificial status.
That doesn't necessarily dispute your (entirely credible) position that money was created for taxes and war as much as it puts things into perspective. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say that governments have been forcefully exploiting economic systems to finance wars for a very long time. :-)
"Question: if a community creates a local currency, at what point does it become illegal, or does it?"
That's a damned good question. I wish I had an answer.
I appreciate Black Flag's work. My only complaint is that the lack of quotation marks and other idiosyncrasies make it hard to follow. Otherwise I would be interested in sharing those ideas.
Just for fun, I entered "money was invented for taxes and war". Here's the response:
This topic invites a rich debate surrounding the origins and purposes of money, particularly in relation to government functions like taxation and warfare. Here, we present arguments for both sides of the proposition that money was invented primarily for taxes and war.
Argument for Money Being Invented for Taxes and War
Historical Context: Early civilizations needed a medium of exchange to facilitate trade and manage resources. However, much of the first forms of currency were created or adopted by states as a means of collecting taxes. For example, in ancient Mesopotamia, city-states developed monetary systems to streamline tax collection, which was crucial for maintaining control and resource distribution.
Resource Allocation for Defense: War necessitates significant resources and funding. Money serves as a critical tool for governments to finance military activities—recruiting soldiers, procuring weapons, and sustaining long campaigns. The centralization of power through taxation made it easier for nations to allocate funds for defense and expansion.
Control and Stability: The introduction of money created a system of economic control, enabling governments to exert authority over their populations. Taxes became more efficient to collect when standardized currency was in place, reducing the barter trade's transaction inefficiencies and allowing governments to maintain economic stability, which in turn facilitated military ventures.
State Power and Monopoly on Violence: The argument extends into the monopoly of violence that states historically hold; they function as the legal purveyors of force. Money, as a tool of the state, became indispensable for raising armies and asserting dominance over others, thus directly linking its existence to the state's capacity for warfare.
Counterargument: Money's Broader Purposes
Facilitating Trade and Economic Growth: While taxes and war are crucial functions of government, many argue that money was primarily invented to facilitate trade. The inefficiencies of barter systems pointed toward a need for a common medium that could simplify transactions, increase market efficiency, and ultimately stimulate economic growth.
Cultural and Societal Development: Money has also served purposes beyond taxation and war, acting as a store of value and unit of account, which are vital for planning and long-term economic activities. It fosters economic interaction and social cooperation that can lead to advancements in culture, technology, and overall societal well-being.
Evolution of Currency: Over time, money has evolved to take various forms—such as barter, shells, gold, coins, and eventually paper and digital currency—often reflecting more than just the needs of taxation or military efforts. The development of fiat currency, for instance, was more about trust and economic stability than merely serving the political ends of taxation or war.
Global Perspective: The use and creation of money are not universals linked solely to state interest; in many societies, money emerged through informal mechanisms driven by community needs, cultural practices, and economic pressures independent of state control.
Refutation of Opposing Points
While it is true that money plays a vital role in facilitating trade and economic exchange, the reliance on a stable currency to support trade systems cannot be disentangled from state power to tax—states are fundamentally intertwined with money creation. Moreover, wars often disrupt economic activity; thus, the role of money becomes even more critical.
Conclusion
Although money serves multiple purposes in society, it is difficult to ignore how much of its utility is rooted in the needs of the state, particularly for taxation and war. The historical context of money suggests that while it has grown to serve a broad array of functions, its emergence was significantly influenced by the state's dual roles in managing economic activities and exercising military power. In this sense, the argument that money was invented for taxes and war holds substantial historical weight and relevance, underscoring the complex relationship between economy, government, and society.
"The inefficiencies of barter systems pointed toward a need for a common medium that could simplify transactions, increase market efficiency, and ultimately stimulate economic growth."--Smith's fairytale embedded in modern-day economics
Those things are fun. They don't really do much other than analyze a position and list pros and cons as per a bunch of reference material. It's not really debating anything. The program basically cites aspects of a position but cannot reason to formulates it's own argument, as it's not cognizant.
The reason I ask is that gift economy is a term coined by anthropologists and refers to many varieties of pre money societies. I can explain more later.
FELICES Y GRACIAS
WAS MONEY INVENTED FOR TAXES AND WAR FELICES
Thank you for this, an enlightening perspective. Has economics also overlooked the innate human sense of debt? Surely alongside our moral compass we possess fine faculties for keeping track of our obligations to one another, a monetary compass one might say. Is it this sense of value within community overtime that is subverted by the demand everything be satisfied with cash in the present moment? There’s certainly something very wrong when the current system appears to be piling ever greater levels of debt on the shoulders of the future. Be interesting to learn about the practicalities of what happened during the debt jubilee periods in Roman history, did the authorities use a new coinage to impose order or were the people left more to their own devises, was it a top down or bottom up process?
Simple takeaway is remove money and everyone is incentivized not to barter but be creative creditors which in turn perhaps transforms one’s outlook on the future - what does it look like economically when the supply of creditors exceeds the supply of debtors? Thanks again NEVERMORE crew for provoking insight 🙏
Thanks for your thoughts, Ben. Indeed in ancient systems of “gift economies” there were often cultural expectations of the future repayment of gifts. This seems to have been formalized to some extent particularly in the potlatch system, where one potlatch chief would go to great lengths to make a display of generosity, amid festivities, and the receiving tribe would eventually return the honors, even leading to competition as to which chief could be the most extravagant.
But at a deeper level, there is something that you have hit on which is a sense of indebtedness that we tend naturally to feel whenever gifted with something.
In chapter 5 of debt, Graeber divides economic relationships between people into 3 categories: “communism,” which he defines as “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”; “hierarchy,” where the one who is giving, such as the state or a benefactor is seen as being in a superior position; and exchange. Rather than describing three circumspect, mutually exclusive kinds of relationships, these often intermingle, resulting in complex psychological and social dynamics.
As for systems of jubilee, or the periodic society-wide cancelling of debts, this became common and did not begin in Rome but long before in ancient Sumer. Often a new king, it is told, would cancel all private debt, and would often do so at the beginning of his reign (this did not apply to commercial debts, i.e. debts incurred in commercial transactions). By cancelling private debt, the king gave the impression that society was to get a new start and put himself in a favorable position where the debt/slave system might have otherwise been seen as oppressive and led to revolt. (Hmmm… a great reset of sorts?) Graeber discusses all this in chapter 3 of Debt. I’ve been listening to the audio chapters on Youtube and highly recommend.
Finally, I would like to say how much I like your idea that we could all become “creative creditors” and create a diffuse surplus of credit (abundance, gratitude and a feeling of community) rather than a concentrated debt system where we are lorded over by those who monopolise monetary credit for their exclusive interests.
I’m reminded of the sayings and parables of Jesus, which often talk about debt; especially the parable of a man who wrote off all the debts owed to his master, and thus became a welcome friend.
Jesus suggest we take a different attitude toward money and debt. Christianity was one of those “axial age” religions that sprung up in response to oppressiveness and horror of what Graeber calls the “military-coinage-slavery system” that destroyed traditional relationships based on kindness, trust and communal interdependence. Jesus and the axial age religions, which also included prophetic Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism and the teachings of Confucius, aimed to recover some of what had been lost, opposed war, and despised money. Of course all of these things are interrelated.
it is a topic I also write about, glad to see that you are among the real thinkers of this world. Graeber is corrrect when saying that 80% have useless jobs.
You said it! If a Great Reset would mean the cancellation of all debts, then I'm all for the Great Reset! Although I prefer the term Jubilee...
To take your idea one step further, I'd like to propose that a "social credit system" could actually be preferable to money! Obviously I'm not talking about CBDCs... but a system in which everyone owed each other favours that couldn't be precisely quantified would be great!
Well, apparently the idea of a social credit system has been explored for quite a while. I think Graeber mentions something on those lines.
My first introduction to the term was in relation to where the Chinese are going with mass control and surveillance, so obviously not something we freedom lovers are interested in promoting. But there are definitely other kinds of social credit, and even ones that can be quantified. That’s something Marc Gauvin has been working on with his Money Systems Transparency Alliance and BIBO currency projects. But I think there are other possibilities. I’ll be exploring more of it as we go along.
Money revolution is here…
https://yummy.doctor/video-list/know-thyself-take-charge-of-your-mortgage-amandha-vollmer-adv-with-michael-obernicia/
And here (an hour in) https://www.youtube.com/live/RC-29HBLJvQ?feature=shared
hey, glad you see throrugh the fog... check out my page when you get a chance...
yes, money is an illusion that make us run after the carrot and the stick while some pocket enormus profits, collude and control us... this is all the subterfuge. Money will never buy freedom for 80% of the population. If yu would like to participate in a podcast about this topic please touch base.
I'm going to continue posting on the subect of money and I think there will be more opportunity for exchange as we go. I think you'll be interested in what's coming, and I look forward to your future engagement.
As for podcasts, I've never participated in one and not sure how I'd do. But let's keep in touch!
I really don't feel like I have any expertise in this area... just a heart feeling and a life of experience in other cultures, especially Latin America, where economic relationships and time itself are treated differently.
Hey! Great to hear from you, Brigitte! I'd love to appear on your podcast. I'll shoot you a DM.
Money is a form of social control. This will especially be the case once digital ID'S are attached to personal finances, medical records, and political points of view.
Indeed. Money was first implemented by expanding states and empires, overtaking small communities that functioned more on communal principles and mutual benefit.
I have little confidence in the digital currency fad. I think we need to get back to producing our own necessities and community solidarity. We also need to find ways to "starve the dragon" - reduce our contribution to strengthening the money system in whatever ways we can.
Way out…https://yummy.doctor/video-list/know-thyself-take-charge-of-your-mortgage-amandha-vollmer-adv-with-michael-obernicia/
And here (an hour in) https://www.youtube.com/live/RC-29HBLJvQ?feature=shared
"Money is whatever is the most desired commodity in an economy."
This guy explains it better than I can in these two articles;
https://freedomfliesblackflag.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/stable-money/
https://freedomfliesblackflag.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/what-is-money/
Thanks John. That helps clarify things. My first impression has been that money is a commodity and I realised that the title of this post was somewhat misleading. Graeber even says money was never invented. It just came about as the result of markets, which themselves came about due to expanding states. Prior to states, people living in small communities had no need for money; trading and markets were the result of exchange with strangers, often invading soldiers. When trading with strangers, something equally valued by different parties becomes a popularly exchanged commodity: thus money.
Would you say that is an accurate description of the process?
What states did do was produce and often impose standardized currency in the form of coinage, paper notes or notched sticks. By issuing such currency to soldiers and requiring a percentage to be returned by all members of society, they created a way to both fund wars (a way to purchase foodstuffs for soldiers, etc.) and effect a circular movement of currency (money in "circulation") and to artificially create demand for the currency, especially when they simultaneously prohibited privately issued currency (promissory notes issued by private banks). Of course, now what we have is a public/private partnership monopoly/control of currency.
Question: if a community creates a local currency, at what point does it become illegal, or does it?
There is also another question that comes up. Prior to money in circulation, credit systems already existed: viz. cuneiform accounting tablets recording the transaction of goods - who owes who.
Or were certain goods already seen as a kind of money even at that point? Were transactions annotated in terms of a specific commodity against which all others were measured?
Black Flag (the author) is a very well educated, well read and extraordinarily intelligent(Mensa) anarchist. He's pretty good at making sense of things. I thought you might appreciate those articles, as they address many of the same points.
I think the general idea in how it applies to the subject matter here is that, in a laissez-faire economy where the natural order is left alone to do it's thing, money is whatever commodity is most desired/valued. If government currency is the most desired commodity, then it is so by use of force and therefore has an artificial status.
That doesn't necessarily dispute your (entirely credible) position that money was created for taxes and war as much as it puts things into perspective. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say that governments have been forcefully exploiting economic systems to finance wars for a very long time. :-)
"Question: if a community creates a local currency, at what point does it become illegal, or does it?"
That's a damned good question. I wish I had an answer.
I appreciate Black Flag's work. My only complaint is that the lack of quotation marks and other idiosyncrasies make it hard to follow. Otherwise I would be interested in sharing those ideas.
https://deepai.org/chat/debate
Just for fun, I entered "money was invented for taxes and war". Here's the response:
This topic invites a rich debate surrounding the origins and purposes of money, particularly in relation to government functions like taxation and warfare. Here, we present arguments for both sides of the proposition that money was invented primarily for taxes and war.
Argument for Money Being Invented for Taxes and War
Historical Context: Early civilizations needed a medium of exchange to facilitate trade and manage resources. However, much of the first forms of currency were created or adopted by states as a means of collecting taxes. For example, in ancient Mesopotamia, city-states developed monetary systems to streamline tax collection, which was crucial for maintaining control and resource distribution.
Resource Allocation for Defense: War necessitates significant resources and funding. Money serves as a critical tool for governments to finance military activities—recruiting soldiers, procuring weapons, and sustaining long campaigns. The centralization of power through taxation made it easier for nations to allocate funds for defense and expansion.
Control and Stability: The introduction of money created a system of economic control, enabling governments to exert authority over their populations. Taxes became more efficient to collect when standardized currency was in place, reducing the barter trade's transaction inefficiencies and allowing governments to maintain economic stability, which in turn facilitated military ventures.
State Power and Monopoly on Violence: The argument extends into the monopoly of violence that states historically hold; they function as the legal purveyors of force. Money, as a tool of the state, became indispensable for raising armies and asserting dominance over others, thus directly linking its existence to the state's capacity for warfare.
Counterargument: Money's Broader Purposes
Facilitating Trade and Economic Growth: While taxes and war are crucial functions of government, many argue that money was primarily invented to facilitate trade. The inefficiencies of barter systems pointed toward a need for a common medium that could simplify transactions, increase market efficiency, and ultimately stimulate economic growth.
Cultural and Societal Development: Money has also served purposes beyond taxation and war, acting as a store of value and unit of account, which are vital for planning and long-term economic activities. It fosters economic interaction and social cooperation that can lead to advancements in culture, technology, and overall societal well-being.
Evolution of Currency: Over time, money has evolved to take various forms—such as barter, shells, gold, coins, and eventually paper and digital currency—often reflecting more than just the needs of taxation or military efforts. The development of fiat currency, for instance, was more about trust and economic stability than merely serving the political ends of taxation or war.
Global Perspective: The use and creation of money are not universals linked solely to state interest; in many societies, money emerged through informal mechanisms driven by community needs, cultural practices, and economic pressures independent of state control.
Refutation of Opposing Points
While it is true that money plays a vital role in facilitating trade and economic exchange, the reliance on a stable currency to support trade systems cannot be disentangled from state power to tax—states are fundamentally intertwined with money creation. Moreover, wars often disrupt economic activity; thus, the role of money becomes even more critical.
Conclusion
Although money serves multiple purposes in society, it is difficult to ignore how much of its utility is rooted in the needs of the state, particularly for taxation and war. The historical context of money suggests that while it has grown to serve a broad array of functions, its emergence was significantly influenced by the state's dual roles in managing economic activities and exercising military power. In this sense, the argument that money was invented for taxes and war holds substantial historical weight and relevance, underscoring the complex relationship between economy, government, and society.
Thanks John. Very interesting.
"The inefficiencies of barter systems pointed toward a need for a common medium that could simplify transactions, increase market efficiency, and ultimately stimulate economic growth."--Smith's fairytale embedded in modern-day economics
Those things are fun. They don't really do much other than analyze a position and list pros and cons as per a bunch of reference material. It's not really debating anything. The program basically cites aspects of a position but cannot reason to formulates it's own argument, as it's not cognizant.
But it's still hella fun to play with.
See, this is why I love AI - it's smart enough to agree with me!
Even while making grave errors based on societal assumptions!
The problem I see in your “gift economies” is how the hell to keep track of all these multiple interlocking personal credits & debts.
Are you referring to something specific? In the past? In the future?
The reason I ask is that gift economy is a term coined by anthropologists and refers to many varieties of pre money societies. I can explain more later.