TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

What is money? (1913)

87 点作者 darkroasted大约 10 年前

15 条评论

thelogos大约 10 年前
Money is a piece of token that represents favor or debt the world owns to you, or at least, anyone who takes money as payment.<p>This whole premise is enforced by central governments in modern times.<p>When we buy or sell goods, give away our time and labor for a salary, we&#x27;re simply exchanging favors.<p>That&#x27;s all money is, a system for keeping track of &quot;favors&quot; owed to any individual.
评论 #9537665 未加载
评论 #9537351 未加载
评论 #9536226 未加载
jchrisa大约 10 年前
This history is required reading for anyone interested in the topic <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Debt:_The_First_5000_Years" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Debt:_The_First_5000_Years</a>
评论 #9536435 未加载
评论 #9537616 未加载
seoguru大约 10 年前
If you are not familiar with &quot;MMT&quot;, I highly recommend reading: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;moslereconomics.com&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;powerpoints&#x2F;7DIF.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;moslereconomics.com&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;powerpoints&#x2F;7DIF.pdf</a> It&#x27;s a quick and easy read and may be quite mind expanding.<p>Also, this 2 hour long video with Mosler and Stephanie Kelton: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ba8XdDqZ-Jg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ba8XdDqZ-Jg</a><p>Randall Wray, Bill Mitchell and Pavlina Tcherneva are a few other economists trying to get the word out.<p>For the &quot;fiscal conservatives&quot;: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;itsthepeoplesmoney.blogspot.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;11&#x2F;confessions-of-former-fiscal.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;itsthepeoplesmoney.blogspot.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;11&#x2F;confessions-o...</a>
noahmarc大约 10 年前
It&#x27;s been a few years since I last read it but Menger&#x27;s take was the first I&#x27;ve ever read that just <i>makes sense</i>: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mises.org&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;On%20the%20Origins%20of%20Money_5.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mises.org&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;On%20the%20Origins%20o...</a> (1892)
评论 #9536207 未加载
评论 #9536756 未加载
msellout大约 10 年前
Thinking of it another way: money is a technology for distributing wealth. Without money we would need to rely on some centralized authority, a chief or pharoah, who would directly or through a bureaucracy distribute wealth. Money allows society to allocate resources with decentralized decisions.
评论 #9535898 未加载
评论 #9535889 未加载
评论 #9537822 未加载
评论 #9535896 未加载
theVirginian大约 10 年前
People on this website have told me my politics degree was useless but then I see this on the front page.
shoo大约 10 年前
I haven&#x27;t seen anyone mention an ecological perspective, so here&#x27;s &quot;The Trophic Theory of Money&quot;:<p>&gt; The theory, in a nutshell, is that the volume of real money (adjusted for inflation) in an economy is a pretty good indicator of the ecological impact of that economy.<p>&gt; In ecology, or the economy of nature, “trophic” refers to the flow of energy and nutrients. The lowest trophic level is the producers, or plants that produce their own food in the process of photosynthesis. Herbivorous animals eat plants, and carnivorous animals eat herbivores. That’s the economy of nature in a nutshell.<p>&gt; In the human economy, the producers are farmers. Only with an agricultural surplus can there be a division of labor into manufacturing and service sectors.<p>&gt; All of these real goods and services occupy some portion of the economic trophic structure. Because this trophic structure as a whole can only increase with increasing agricultural and extractive surplus, an expanding real money supply represents an increasing environmental impact.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;steadystate.org&#x2F;the-trophic-theory-of-money&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;steadystate.org&#x2F;the-trophic-theory-of-money&#x2F;</a><p>This clearly is not the only perspective of what money &quot;is&quot;, or even a mainstream one. But it seems like a reasonable stab at a functional description of what money &quot;means&quot; in an environmental sense.
评论 #9538225 未加载
winterismute大约 10 年前
Only partially related, but still: some friends are working on a game in which you play as a &quot;banker&quot; from middle ages until modern times. It is mainly a city &quot;sim&quot; game but that should also make you think about what is money and what it represents. They would love any feedback: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;moneymakerdeluxe.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;moneymakerdeluxe.com&#x2F;</a>
RockyMcNuts大约 10 年前
Adam Smith might be wrong about the detailed history or might be oversimplifying the history. But I don&#x27;t think he could be very wrong about how people thought about money in his time. One point of the article is that the exact amount of base metal was never really the point and the value of the coins was regulated by supply and demand for coins somewhat independently of the precious metal content. Which seems fair, but then one has to ask why make the coins out of gold etc. in the first place, and why make a big deal about how much is in there?
darkroasted大约 10 年前
I posted this because it is an interesting view, and it was written in 1913 and so a lot the ideas here got picked up and included in ideas of economics since then.<p>But I do have some major disagreements with the author:<p>&quot;<i>Credit and debt have nothing and never have had anything to do with gold and silver.</i>&quot;<p>The history goes that originally humans used things like shells and beads to signal debts and obligations ( <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;szabo.best.vwh.net&#x2F;shell.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;szabo.best.vwh.net&#x2F;shell.html</a> ). The idea is you need to have some collectible that is very hard to produce or fake, otherwise someone could forge it and fake that you owed them a debt. Overtime, it turns out gold and silver make the best tokens, because they are rare, easily molded into tokens of various size, and are very hard to fake. Then the government makes coins out of these gold and silver, and tries to make the coins the official tender, and sets the value of the coins at premium over the bullion included. Finally, the government tries to debase the coins gradually so it can make money from seinorage.<p>&quot;<i>Such legislation was, no doubt, due to the erroneous view that has grown up in modern days that a depositor has the right to have his deposit paid in gold or in “lawful money.” I am not aware of any law expressly giving him such a right, and under normal conditions, at any rate, he would not have it</i>&quot;<p>It would have been news to the depositors that they did not have the right to withdraw the money they put in. If they were not given this right, would they still lend? Part of the problem with banking historically is that there needs to be a clearer distinction between a deposit to a vault and investing in a bond mutual fund. Banks are sort of a hybrid of the two, and the contradiction makes the system break down.<p>&quot;<i>but there is overwhelming evidence that there never was, a monetary unit which depended on the value of coin or on a weight of metal; that there never was, until quite modern days, any fixed relationship between the monetary unit and any metal; that, in fact, there never was such a thing as a metallic standard of value.</i>&quot;<p>If this was the case, then why didn&#x27;t the Roman emperors make their coins out of iron? Sure, the face value always exceeded the metal value. But the metal was irrelevant. If the government pushes it too far, people stop accepting the coin, as the author notes in other parts of the essay.<p>&quot;<i>Money, then, is credit and nothing but credit.</i>&quot;<p>There is a sense in which this is true. It is like one of those optical illusions, where the image flips depending on how you look at it.<p>But, from the point of view of a clean definition of terms, it only makes sense to call something a &quot;credit&quot; if you are promised something specific in return. If a token has no specific promise, then it is a collectible, not a credit.
评论 #9536262 未加载
评论 #9536384 未加载
评论 #9537712 未加载
评论 #9537883 未加载
twblalock大约 10 年前
Someone needs to fix the contrast on that page. It&#x27;s very hard to read.
dredmorbius大约 10 年前
A few further points and references on money.<p>There&#x27;s the standard four-point definition used in economics:<p>1. A medium of exchange.<p>2. A unit of account.<p>3. A store of value.<p>4. Sometimes: a standard of deferred payment.<p>Note that these four functions are given more-or-less in order of significance, and that the great obsession of goldbugs and anti-inflationists , a (stable) store of value, is third on the list and is exceeded by the role as a medium of exchange. Fail in the first role and all commerce stops.<p>I was surprised that with the emphasis on debt and credit in the article, David Graeber&#x27;s <i>Debt: The first 5,000 years</i> wasn&#x27;t mentioned. Well worth reading.<p>I&#x27;ve found the concepts of modern monetary theory (MMT) to be quite interesting and that they tend to correspond to many of my own views. In particular that money itself can simply be created (or destroyed), that it enters circulation by way of government spending (or central-bank purchases of assets), and that payments which are mandated in a given currency, particularly taxes, but also interest and other debt obligations or mandated currencies (e.g., the U.S. dollar&#x27;s role as a reserve currency and in global petroleum trade) create a value basis for the currency. That is: people and organizations must pay taxes and buy petroleum, so they must have dollars, so that dollars have value. A point the bitcoinistas seem to have failed to grasp....<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Modern_Monetary_Theory" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Modern_Monetary_Theory</a><p>There&#x27;s some history to the idea that money should be considered to be backed in energy. I&#x27;d first encountered it in Arthur C. Clarke&#x27;s novel <i>Imperial Earth</i>, in which &quot;Sols&quot; were backed in kilowatt-hours. Kim Stanley Robinson uses the idea in his Re-Green-Blue Mars series, and Buckminster Fuller discussed the concept. The earliest reference of which I&#x27;m aware is H.G. Wells 1914 story <i>The World Set Free</i>,<p>As Wells wrote:<p><i>The world had already been put upon one universal monetary basis. For some months after the accession of the council, the world&#x27;s affairs had been carried on without any sound currency at all. Over great regions money was still in use, but with the most extravagant variations in price and the most disconcerting fluctuations of public confidence. The ancient rarity of gold upon which the entire system rested was gone. Gold was now a waste product in the release of atomic energy, and it was plain that no metal could be the basis of the monetary system again. Henceforth all coins must be token coins. Yet the whole world was accustomed to metallic money, and a vast proportion of existing human relationships had grown up upon a cash basis, and were almost inconceivable without that convenient liquidating factor. It seemed absolutely necessary to the life of the social organisation to have some sort of currency, and the council had therefore to discover some real value upon which to rest it. Various such apparently stable values as land and hours of work were considered. Ultimately the government, which was now in possession of most of the supplies of energy-releasing material, fixed a certain number of units of energy as the value of a gold sovereign, declared a sovereign to be worth exactly twenty marks, twenty-five francs, five dollars, and so forth, with the other current units of the world, and undertook, under various qualifications and conditions, to deliver energy upon demand as payment for every sovereign presented.</i><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gutenberg.org&#x2F;files&#x2F;1059&#x2F;1059-h&#x2F;1059-h.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gutenberg.org&#x2F;files&#x2F;1059&#x2F;1059-h&#x2F;1059-h.htm</a><p>Wells dedicates his book to Frederick Soddy, principally known as a chemist (he won a Nobel prize), but also the author of <i>The Rôle of Money</i>, avaible at Archive.org:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;stream&#x2F;roleofmoney032861mbp#page&#x2F;n3&#x2F;mode&#x2F;2up" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;stream&#x2F;roleofmoney032861mbp#page&#x2F;n3&#x2F;mode...</a><p>Soddy&#x27;s economics views, based on thermodynamics, have been criticized by orthodox economists:<p>&quot;Mr. Soddy’s Ecological Economy&quot;<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2009&#x2F;04&#x2F;12&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;12zencey.html?_r=1&amp;ref=opinion" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2009&#x2F;04&#x2F;12&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;12zencey.html?_r=1...</a><p>It further turns out that Clarke was quite the fan of Wells, read his books as a child, and kept a photograph of the earlier author in his study in Columbo, Sri Lanka. Clarke&#x27;s portrayal of money in <i>Imperial Earth</i> also carried strong shades of contemporary politics at the time of its writing, including the emerging importance of Middle-East oil, and the newly-coined term &quot;petrodollar&quot; to describe dollars supported by the oil trade.<p>Thomas Edison also made some use of the concept.<p>This history is discussed in more depth here:<p>&quot;Tracing the concept of money as backed by energy: H.G. Wells, 1914&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;dredmorbius&#x2F;comments&#x2F;24wyty&#x2F;tracing_the_concept_of_money_as_backed_by_energy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;dredmorbius&#x2F;comments&#x2F;24wyty&#x2F;tracing...</a><p>My own view on money as &quot;backed in energy&quot; is that it has some value, and almost certainly explains much of the actual origins of wealth (that is, total productive capacity), but that money itself while it can be <i>exchanged</i> for energy and derives <i>value</i> from energy isn&#x27;t <i>the same as</i> energy, and in particular, as a unit of exchange and for settling debts, serves as information and that the ability to inflate (or deflate) currency is in fact a core attribute of it.<p>My own definition tends toward &quot;demand rights&quot;, which can be created <i>de novo</i> by a currency soverign or by mutual agreement (or unilateral choice by counterfeiters), and that of its several uses, <i>facilitating exchange</i> is of utmost importance. Rather than the usual model of money as a bloodstream or flow, I think a closer anatomical analog would be of electrolyte balances or endocrine signals which encourage or discourage nutrient and other uptake by the cells of the body. Excess accumulations of same would be unhealthy in the body, and are for economies as well.
评论 #9538977 未加载
RodericDay大约 10 年前
The magical land of barter as neoliberal founding myth
ommunist大约 10 年前
This article says what money WAS. What it actually is now is a form of credit statement. The more &quot;money&quot; you have, the more debt you created in the society. It is interesting how value is separated from money now. Equity is more &quot;money&quot; than you think. And @msellout is right - &quot;Money&quot; is technology.
phoenix7978大约 10 年前
Money is evil