Wi: money was never invented?

ILong story short: I think the Inca economy was already becoming a relic system by the time the Spaniards arrived, and could not have survived the increasing evolution towards greater complexity and scale in society.
Maybe you`re right. I´m not sure, but it could be.

Such money-less economies aren't exceptions for nothing. They develop only under specific circumstances. An intermediary means of exchange just makes so much sense under nearly all circumstances that keeping it from existing would be... very hard.
On that I agree, too. At least, I think there`d need to be some reason for the idea never to come up (or even be abandoned fast).

Regarding (b), I'd argue that even in the most primitive times, nothing is free. If you hunt, you expend energy and time. You exchange those for food, which you value more. Is the food you gain "free"? Everything has a cost. The absence of money doesn't mean the absence of value and cost... just as the absence of clocks doesn't mean that time ceases to exist.
Here, again, I´m not sure if you`re not applying a certain cultural frame, or maybe even an economic theory, onto things rather brachially.
By postulating "cost" and "value" as psychological entities, you`re stating a theory with the Popperian flaw of not being falsifiable. How would I show you that humans don`t really (always) calculate like that in their minds? I´m sure they don`t, you maybe sure they are, but we can`t prove either.
Well, let´s at least agree that your statement above has moved the topic of "cost" from the social to the psychological domain, shall we?
And could we then agree to focus on the social meaning of "cost" only when talking about the OP`s idea?
In this sense, the game you hunt is free as long as no other human or no rule among humans restricts you from hunting it.
This was the case for most of humanity`s existence. Fairly primitive societies, I agree.
 

Brunaburh

Banned
I'd agree that money is not inevitable, neither is barter. For cultural reasons, we tend to see all exchange as a process by which two parties rationally seek to maximise their benefits from the transaction. Anthropologically that kind of exchange is actually far from universal, although there is an argument to be made that our kind of barter/financial negotiation will lead to a stronger civilisation.
 
We actually have evidence of at least some Inca use of money, and we believe that it had both economic and ritual significance. The Highland regions didn't have much in the way of trade, but that was very much a function of their environment and doesn't preclude the possibility of symbolic exchange.

Even some of the most isolated Stone Age people in the world (the Dani of New Guinea) had a conception of money (i.e. something more than just plain barter) and they had almost no contact with the outside world until Europeans arrived in the 1930s.
 
I'd think it would make life harder and civilization slower, mainly because money is a shortcut for a lot of things... it has an agreed upon value, it can be traded for your labor and then anything you want to buy, etc. No arguing about the individual merits of livestock being bartered, no having to keep big jars of grain on hand to pay your workers with, etc.
 
I guess you could see a very high trust society or a highly regulated society going beyond the Inca stage while still not using cash or currency--but they would still have some kind of unit of account. Basically its barely possible that you could skip currency and move right to paper credit card equivalents, maybe.
 
I'd think it would make life harder and civilization slower, mainly because money is a shortcut for a lot of things... it has an agreed upon value, it can be traded for your labor and then anything you want to buy, etc. No arguing about the individual merits of livestock being bartered, no having to keep big jars of grain on hand to pay your workers with, etc.

I guess you could see a very high trust society or a highly regulated society going beyond the Inca stage while still not using cash or currency--but they would still have some kind of unit of account. Basically its barely possible that you could skip currency and move right to paper credit card equivalents, maybe.

But even then, that's money. As soon as you have a commonly accepted unit of exchange, whether virtual or based on grains, that's a currency.

The situation where you wouldn't have a currency would be a hardcore communist society where every citizen gets coupons for designated goods, which are not transferrable and everybody gets the same amount no matter what.

Otherwise, currency keeps popping up in any remotely complex society, as it helps establish a standard of exchange. If not, you're stuck thinking of how many handwoven baskets a cow is worth, so you can exchange the cow for a freshly grinded axe which will help you get some oysters.
Barter is a terribly wasteful system
 
If civilization evolves to where it stood when money was invented, money is going to be invented, period!
Civilization without money is like urbanization without streets.

Well streets are less necessary than "money" for the development of urban centers. If I am not mistaken, Çatalhoyük operated without much ground level rounds.
 
Okay I really didn’t think that first post through with that everything being free that wouldn’t happen. But what do you think a civilization that doesn’t have money would do instead when it reaches the point where we are at.
 

RousseauX

Donor
But what if it did? If somehow they did what do you think they would do instead?
even chimps in a zoo are capable of learning about the concept of money and start trading with each other:

https://www.zmescience.com/research...g-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/

in PoW camps PoWs start using cigrarittes as medium of exchange

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money

like the all money is is a medium of exchange basically it's just an item you commonly use to barter with unless you think you can make human brain unable to understand how to trade with each other money is going to exist in some form or other
 
Last edited:

PhilippeO

Banned
https://mud.co.uk/richard/ltlwo7.htm

Orcish Gift Economy :

Of course, the HA are keen barterers. I want your bowl, you want my eggs, we do a deal whereby I get the bowl for an agreed number of eggs. Simple. Well, yes, but it's not actually how most of the transactions among the HA get done. Instead of physical coinage, the HA employ a system of favours. If you want someone else to perform a service for you or to provide you with some goods, but you don't have anything to hand with which to bargain, you offer them a number of favours. These can later be cashed in when your circumstances change (eg. when the whisky you are distilling is ready, or when your goat has kids, or when your cold gets better). Most of the time, however, they're traded. This can lead to conversations which seem amazingly convoluted to the uninitiated.
"Well I'll patch your roof, but it'll cost you three favours."
"Right, so I owe you 28 now."
"Well I owe HAK 18, so you can owe me ten and HAK 18, and tell him I'm square."
"Tell him yourself, and since he owes me 5 I'll only owe him 13."
"Well, whoever sees him first can tell him."
There are two things to note about this system. Firstly, it depends very much on honesty: if one HA lied to another HA, they would basically be manufacturing credit for themselves, thereby increasing the money supply drastically, potentially leading to rampant inflation. Secondly, every favour is equal: a favour from Lakka, the chief, might well get more done than a favour from some bloke who collects firewood, but they cancel out on a one-for-one basis (not that Lakka gives out favours of his own very often, the skinflint).
Of course, this system also means people need to have bank books for memories and adding machines for brains... Nevertheless, it works. The first issue (why don't people cheat) is addressed by cultural practices which greatly discourage any such actions (death by having your head stomped on), and by the general honesty the HA seem to have even when practically destitute (which is their normal state of existence). The second issue just isn't an issue: what you get for a favour from Lakka might take him less time to perform than what you get from the woman who suckles babies, but its worth is equivalent6.
When a HA tries to cash in a favour, it is not incumbent upon the favour-giver to do what is asked; it's an option. Most will do it, but, as I'd noticed before, they don't like the idea that they have to do it; they're likely to exchange the favour being cashed in for another one owed them by someone else if they can and they're feeling moderately stroppy.
Now if you consider that there's a whole society of people operating this favour system, it almost beggars belief that people can memorise so many numbers without making the kind of mistakes that would result in their getting a head stomping. The way it tends to work, though, is that people will try to collect favours belonging to certain individuals, so if you have 30 favours from orc X and are offered 15 favours from orc Y, you might ask for them in X favours if they're available, rather than in Y's own. Using this system, most orcs only need keep tabs of around 10 principal accounts, with perhaps a pool of 10 or more others at any one time (but less for a while if someone drops dead and you can't cash in their favours any more).
 
I think though it is an interesting question how far a palace or temple economy could come. They came to the level of decent city states in Mesopotamia although I'm not sure if they completely lacked a currency equivalent. Certainly most of the economy was not run with it though. If we place an ASB block on the development of a money equivalent what could they do. They were able to develop decent irrigation and architecture so I think it is a mistake to say they simply couldn't advance. Maybe more slowly but in time they might be able to. I think one could reach the Iron age. The problem is of course the tendency to go into a rut and stagnate. But maybe not with the right conditions.
Come on guys be imaginative. This is alternate history. Don't just say ASB. Put some thought into it.
 
There's going to be a point where it simply becomes unfeasible. The double coincidence of wants can only go so far and only gets worse as time goes on. And if you do run into a society that uses money then your chance of enforcing it when currency starts creeping in drops like a stone.
 
Okay then what do you guys think is the point technologically where a civilization can’t continue without money. Where exactly?
 
Last edited:
Okay then what do you guys think is the point technologically where a civilization can’t continue without money. Where exactly?
I suspect they might be able to go quite far if the social structures were right. The real problem is coordinating over large distances, not having the elites crushing change and surviving collapses. I believe we are too prone on this site to assume our history was the only history possible. I am writing an essay right now so will get back to you on it after I am finished. Probably tomorrow.
 
The incan economy isn't an outlier, it is a primitive economy. We can see the same sort of thing happening in early mesopotamian civilizations. Akkad built its empire on controlling food distribution, not military domination (such a thing was not possible in that period). Food basically was currency in early civilization. Hell, the Mycenaeans used it as a proto-currency.

Barter economies only work when both parties have something the other wants/needs or can use, so that is out of the question for advanced economies/civilizations.

Currency is necessary for advanced economies/civilizations as it provides a universally accepted means of exchange. The currency itself is useless, but everyone will take it in exchange for a good/service. This is important, as it basically allows for a barter economy to function at a higher level.

For the life of me, I cannot think of any economy that would not eventually evolve some form of currency.
 
Top