It makes sense that in a village you'd have standing relationships so you wouldn't need to actually pass currency back and forth.
Even in 19th c. Russian novels you'd have the butcher and the baker coming a few times a year to ask for the debts to be settled, but for most of the time you'd just buy things on credit and have it marked on your tab for later payment. The big change in the mid-20th c. was that now there was one system of credit cards that are accepted everywhere instead of many small systems of credit with each particular merchant.
A libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies "scientific racism," eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience, Stefan Molyneux operates within the racist so-called “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
That aside, his economic doctrines are at best a random splatter pattern. There are vastly better uses of your time and attention.
I remember when trump was running the first time, many respected users of hacker news advocated for the suspension of Godwin's law because "this time he's actually a nazi"
Figuratively Vs literally goes out the window if emotions run high.
It's ironic because that is "literally" what Godwin's law is about.
And you probably should check what's Godwin's law again. Godwin had nothing against calling Nazis Nazis. If I say “Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrent are Nazis” do you have a problem with that too because they don't have their Nazi parti membership card? Maybe we should stop calling Hitler “fascist” because he didn't belong to the Italian Fascist party either…
Stefan Molyneux writes and talks about the superiority of the “white” race, believed that there's a conspiracy to erase it from earth (the white genocide stuff) and that something (guess what…) must be done to stop it. If that doesn't count as Nazi in your book, I am sorry.
“Currency” is where one has (small, most of the time) tokens that represent money. The material used in such tokens can be worth the money it represents, as historically in gold and silver coins, but it need not, as in banknotes.
Money is seen as having four principle functions:[1]
1. A medium of exchange.
2. A unit of account.
3. A store of value.
4. Sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.
Function 1 is currency. Function 2 is value. Function 3 is as an asset. Function 4 is debt.
Note that debt also needs to have some sense of value, and that effective debt-management systems tend to rely on a stable metric of value.
William Stanley Jevons writing in Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (1875)[2] gives seven qualities of the material of money: utility/value, portability, indestructibility, homogeneity, divisibility, stability, and cognizability.
By utility, he holds that money must have an intrinsic value of itself. Given the existence of nominal coinage and fiat currencies, this is clearly false.
By portability, that money is easily transported and exchanged, unlike other assets, say, land.
By homogeneity, that any given unit of money is equally exchangeable for another. It doesn't matter what dollar, euro, yen, or mark you have, only how many.
By indestructibility, somewhat relaxed, that money not be easily or spontaneously degraded. Volatile or uncontainable forms of assets are not suitable for money.
By divisibility, that the units of money be either subject to division or multiplication. Unlike, say, a Great Masters artwork, which has value, is portable, and is reasonably durable, but whose value does not survive its being cut into pieces. Contrast a dollar which can be subdivided into pennies, or aggregated to a $100 banknote.
By stability, that the value is reasonably uniform over time. As with utility, this seems not strictly true.
By cognizability, that money is immediately and universally recognisable as money. Note that this argues against certain suggested money alternatives, such as bitcoin, which literally requires a planet-wide network of extraordinarily expensive computations to be computed to "cognize" any given transaction.
The history of debt and money shows numerous forms, including "gift cultures" (generally for small tribes), grain accounts (early cities), numerous commodities (metals, stones, beads, glass, beaver pelts, oyster shells, cattle, cattle hides, and more. (Many of these origins show up in slang terms for money.) Virtually all currencies have or had names suggesting either weight, divisibility, quality, domain of relevance (typically country), or some indicator of quality, of coinage: pound, shekel, dinar, dollar, mark, royal, florin, ruble, afghani, and many more.[3]
Examples of currencies not representing government-issued coin (or other demarcations) are commonplace, and range from other governments' currency (as in US dollar trade or black markets outside the US, or use of Spanish Reals in colonial America and the early US) to former governments' currency (Roman coinage being used long after the fall of the Roman Empire), to commodity currencies based on raw materials (such as beaver pelts and oyster shells) to manufactured products such as cigarettes. A classic example of the last is given in "The Economic Organisation of a P.O.W. Camp", by Richard Radford, describing the cigarette-based economy of a German WWII camp.
My own view is that money (or debt) is information, specifically socially recognised recognition of obligations, and in its manifestations, tokenised money represents some credible expression of that obligation. In form, then, money is whatever commodity forms the most universally acceptable and available medium of exchange within a given exchange network. This might be a government-issued coinage, but can be something else. The classic functions and Jevons' list of qualities are not absolutes, and there can be considerable trade-offs amongst these.
An element explicitly mentioned in either the four functions or Jevons lists is trust evidenced in money. In tightly-knit tribal structures, the trust is manifest and tokenisation is not required. Credits and debits are known, disputes are readily settled, and explicit tokenisation is not required, so money does not exist. In early cities, grain and other commodities served as both principle exchanged goods, and principle units of value, and an accounting system with an annual cycle functioned relatively well. As trade and exchange expanded in both goods, distance, and numbers of participants, an explicit tokenisation was required, and uniform assets with concentrated stable value and assayable quality (mostly precious metals) emerged. The notion of seigniorage, a premium paid for coinage based on its minting, above the specie metal contained within it, is a measure of trust in the mint. Paper, fiat, and non-work-factor digital currencies have effectively infinite seigniorage -- there is no intrinsic value, instead the value is in the trust of institutions and systems of account.
NB: This may be a minority view of one.
________________________________
Notes:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#functions
2. https://archive.org/stream/moneyexchange00jevorich#page/n7/m...
3. For a list of currencies, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currencies Etymologies may be traced via the online etymological dictionary, https://www.etymonline.com/
4. See https://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/frances-woolley-t... Original paper: http://www.simon-davies.org.uk/Radford_1945_POWCamp.pdf
Email me at username via Protonmail.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120522212001/www.simon-davies....
The metal value of the coins only mattered for trade with foreigners.