Invention of Money – Kevin Buttari

After hearing the stories of the Yap, I have come to the conclusion that money is becoming an increasingly abstract concept.  As the years have passed, money has become less about the actually physical amount of currency you posses (whether it be gold, the fei or the dollar) and more about the abstract credit you posses.  A few centuries ago, if you had money, you could easily produce a physical representation of what you posses.  Now, you may have significantly more money but almost nothing physical to represent it.  The most valuable things have become not paper, metal, or stone money, but a piece of magnetized plastic that represents that you have money somewhere else in a non-physical form that you can spend depending on how the aforementioned non-physical money is distributed into non-physical accounts.  I think money has actually gotten to the point were it’s actually more absurd than the Yap’s money system, because at least somewhere, there’s a huge carved stone that can physically represent it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A01: Invention of Money, Kevin Buttari. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Invention of Money – Kevin Buttari

  1. kmbuttari says:

    I need a review and such

  2. davidbdale says:

    As you may have read elsewhere, Kevin, you’ll be eliminating personal accounts of how the readings affected you, substituting clear positive claims about the abstract concepts themselves. If this sounds unfamiliar, first read the entire updated Assignment A03. Then come back for your specific notes.

    P1. It’s not necessary to build a vague timeline here, Kevin. If you say once that money is increasingly abstract, you can dispense with the rest of the time markers (becoming, As the years, has become, A few centuries ago, Now, has actually gotten to the point).

    You may be the only writer who has focused on credit. Please follow that impulse. I’m not sure you’re right that historically wealthy people could necessarily produce physical evidence, or that it’s so different today, but it’s certainly true that wealthy people could command large numbers of workers to labor for them ,for example, on the basis of their perceived worth. Kings could send armies without necessarily owning all the food they would need before they left. See where I’m going with this? Credit has gradually replaced hard assets as the important measure of monetary success, don’t you think? But no, that doesn’t mean the plastic is “the most valuable thing.” It won’t be as convenient, but cardholder can tap his credit without the card. Don’t we do it all the time when ordering things online?

    Anyway, you haven’t provided enough development of your main idea here to qualify for a rewrite essay yet, so do some more reading (the Japanese articles will help you understand the problems of countries losing their creditworthiness) and beef up what I hope will be a strong paper on the emergence of credit as the real currency.

  3. davidbdale says:

    Looking for your feedback on the feedback here, Kevin. It’s freely given, but only if it’s helpful. If you need less, I can save myself an hour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s