A Walk in Time; Discussing Bartering to Bitcoin – Cypher Core
Structural implications focus on the cognitive classification and the evocative meaning associated with money. At the micro-level, this refers to the beliefs, attitudes, and values that arise from money, and the influence it has on people. At the macro level, the studies focus on the influence money has on the larger belief systems of society as a whole. This includes the civil and religious values of society. This theory can be broken down into two very different ideas. One is that money gives humans a sense of freedom. Talcott Parsons, one of the most influential figures in the field of sociology in the 20th century, argues that money grants four freedoms: you are able to buy what you want, from whom you want, when you want, and are able to reject or accept the conditions with that transaction (Parsons 307). This theory on the micro implications of money shows the individual freedom that can be granted from money. While this theory may be true, modern sociologists argue it has more standing in the past when individual freedom might have been harder to achieve. In modern society, it is often felt that individuals feel more imprisoned to the idea of making money. Financial freedom is often a sought after goal for individuals in the 21st century. This is the idea that an individual makes enough money to live how they want to live, without answering to anyone. Money does offer this type of freedom, but it is becoming harder to achieve. Money can be a controlling force on an individuals’ life. This idea is similar to many macro theories on the structural implications of money. Historically, sociologists like Karl Marx claimed that money was used as a tool of oppression. Gannsmann argued that money is not a harmless social device, but a weapon of social oppression used to produce relations of social and economic domination (Gannsmann 1988). These conflicting theories show the good and evil behind money. Money can be the key to breaking free, but it can also be the shackles that hold you down. Cultural implications of money from a sociological standpoint consider the social definition, interpretation, and meaning of money. This perspective places culture ahead of money and states that culture determines what money is and how it is used. Money is viewed as a dependent variable and is shaped by the culture. Economists tend to dismiss this viewpoint and believe that money plays a larger role on culture. At the micro-level of this perspective, an example of a cultural influence that impacts money is the classic argument that women earn less because they devote less effort at work (Becker 1985). Becker argued that women earn less due to greater family responsibilities and lower market human value and that these were a result of cultural implications and shaped the way money was allocated. At the macro level, Wischer argued that the value of a nation’s currency reflects the collective perceptions of the nation’s capabilities (Wischer 1970). This argument means that a belief or attitude about a currency can greatly impact its price and power. This shows that a country and it’s currency is only as powerful as the people and society who make it have value.
In 9000 B.C, if a farmer had a surplus of cattle, but had little grain, he would use his cattle to barter with someone who happened to have a surplus of grain and little cattle. This is how currency and trade worked. Many forms of currency were used in this time period, such as cattle, furs, and slaves. These were known as commodity money. Commodity money is any form of currency that can serve another purpose apart from its use as money. Examples of commodity money include maize, cattle, gold, silver and olive oil. The particular commodity chosen to serve as money depended upon various factors such as the location of the community, climatic environment of the region, cultural and economic standard of society, etc. For example, people living by the seashore adopted shells and dried fish as money. People of the cold regions in Alaska and Siberia preferred skins and furs as a medium of exchange. These forms of currency were not practical for everyday use as they came with many problems. Aristotle refers to this in his work Politics, which states “more complex form of exchange [money] grew, as might have been inferred, out of the simpler [barter]…For the various necessaries of life are not easily carried about, and hence men agreed to employ in their dealings with each other something which was intrinsically useful and easily applicable to the purposes of life, for example, iron, silver, and the like”. Having a currency that can be used to buy anything solves many of the problems with bartering. When bartering, the other party has to be interested in the specific good that is being offered, which greatly decreases the probability to trade. This is what Edgeworth (1881) called a “double coincidence of wants.” Coleman summarized this by explaining that A has something that B wants, and B has something that A wants. Both of these parties need to want what the other has, more than what they already have themselves. Money gets rid of the need for the double coincidence of wants. While bartering and less sophisticated currency worked, there was room for improvement. In his book An Outline of Money, Geoffrey Crowther described money as the “radical invention of some lazy genius who found himself oppressed by the task of calculating how many bushels of corn should exchange for one tiger-skin, if three bushels of corn were equal to five bananas, twenty bananas to one goat and twenty goats to one tiger-skin. And it undoubtedly was an invention; it needed the conscious reasoning power of Man to make the step from simple barter to money-accounting.” This quote shows how money was created to make transactions more fluent and efficient. An unusual currency developed during this time that was used often. Shells, among other things, got their place in trade as a product for commodity exchange, mainly because of their value as body ornamentation. Besides this, they had some other attributes that made them a perfect basis for an early version of a monetary system. Among the variety of shells that were used as coins in different parts of the world, there was one type that had a huge international demand, the shell of the money cowrie, Cypraea moneta. Cowrie shells were very durable, small, and light in weight, making them easy to handle and transport. It’s easy to see why they were chosen to serve as money, and later in some places, even became as valued as metal coins. All of these attributes are comparable to modern-day money. Animal and commodity money, however, suffered from many drawbacks. These include a lack of uniformity, lack of standardization, and lack of easy transferability and divisibility. Supply and demand can also significantly affect the price of commodities. For example, after a hurricane the supply of oil may get disrupted, causing the price of oil to rise. Commodity money is typically not as divisible as traditional paper money and measuring the exact amounts of value of commodity money is not easy. Therefore it is difficult to manage your wealth using commodity money. Because of this, a new type of currency was needed.
As we continue to distribute this short series on our publication I’d like to thank our community again for sticking with us throughout the years. Friends, family, anons, and everyone in between. Cheers.
Author: Chace Young
E-mail
Website
Twitter
Telegram
Instagram
Published at Sun, 16 Feb 2020 06:19:04 +0000