• Mubelotix@jlai.luOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Thank you. I edited the post with the new image but I’m not sure it will federate well

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    One theory says gold currency was invented for military campaigns. Kings of old didn’t need currency as they could just demand someone give or make them what they wanted, including mining for more gold. But soldiers need food, so a serious campaign means a lot of logistics. Or you could give them gold so they could buy stuff. And to make sure there is enough gold and people actually want to sell stuff the king imposes taxes.

    • Codex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Graeber and Wengrow also suggest this is the origin of marketplaces. People had always traded, and would often hold regular festivals or holidays where merchants would gather to exchange goods.

      But the permanent armies of sovereigns require upkeep. So it isn’t just that you do taxes and create a gold economy, that’s the seed step. Then local producers are “gently coerced” into bringing their goods to market regularly so the armies can supply from them.

      In a sense, capitalism and policing arise from ever more efficient configurations through iterations of this cycle.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        IIRC an aspect of this is that earlier forms of trade and currency were more tied up in the personal relationships between the people trading and their culture, which makes for an impractical environment for a foreign mercenary with no local familiarity or trust to do business, hence the terrible power of gold’s fungibility.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    So, no-one is going to say by automation, one person can feed 10,000, clothe 1000, house 100. Not even 1 ‘man’ can support a family like in the 1950s. What’s gone wrong ? What’s the damn problem, sir?

    • NotBillMurray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Average productivity and salary were pretty closely tied up until around 1978. Since then productivity has continued to skyrocket but salary has remained stagnant.

      • Eranziel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, the issue is that already-rich business owners own all the automation and are scooping the profits of the increased productivity.

        • ours@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Looping back to feudal lords spending their money mostly on luxury goods.