Sunday , January 19 2020
Home / Mike Norman Economics / Michael Hudson — Origins of Money and Interest: Palatial Credit, not Barter

Michael Hudson — Origins of Money and Interest: Palatial Credit, not Barter

Summary:
Neolithic and Bronze Age economies operated mainly on credit. Because of the time gap between planting and harvesting, few payments were made at the time of purchase. When Babylonians went to the local alehouse, they did not pay by carrying grain around in their pockets. They ran up a tab to be settled at harvest time on the threshing floor. The ale women who ran these “pubs” would then pay most of this grain to the palace for consignments advanced to them during the crop year. These payments were financial in character, not on-the-spot barter-type exchange. As a means of payment, the early use of monetized grain and silver was mainly to settle such debts. This monetization was not physical; it was administrative and fiscal. The paradigmatic payments involved the palace or temples,

Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: , , , , , ,

This could be interesting, too:

Mike Norman writes Michael Roberts Blog: blogging from a marxist economist — Minsky and socialism

Stavros Mavroudeas writes Comment on Miguel Ramirez’s paper, ‘Credit, Indebtedness and Speculation in Marx’s Political Economy’ – ECONOMIC THOUGHT

Frances Coppola writes Hitting the wall

John Weeks writes GDP: origin, uses and abuses

Neolithic and Bronze Age economies operated mainly on credit. Because of the time gap between planting and harvesting, few payments were made at the time of purchase. When Babylonians went to the local alehouse, they did not pay by carrying grain around in their pockets. They ran up a tab to be settled at harvest time on the threshing floor. The ale women who ran these “pubs” would then pay most of this grain to the palace for consignments advanced to them during the crop year. These payments were financial in character, not on-the-spot barter-type exchange.
As a means of payment, the early use of monetized grain and silver was mainly to settle such debts. This monetization was not physical; it was administrative and fiscal. The paradigmatic payments involved the palace or temples, which regulated the weights, measures and purity standards necessary for money to be accepted. Their accountants that developed money as an administrative tool for forward planning and resource allocation, and for transactions with the rest of the economy to collect land rent and assign values to trade consignments, which were paid in silver at the end of each seafaring or caravan cycle....
Naked Capitalism
Michael Hudson: Origins of Money and Interest: Palatial Credit, not Barter

See also

Michael Hudson — On Finance, Real Estate And The Powers Of Neoliberalism
High Cost Economy

There’s an idea – deregulate the banks!
Michael Hudson | President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and Guest Professor at Peking University




Mike Norman
Mike Norman is an economist and veteran trader whose career has spanned over 30 years on Wall Street. He is a former member and trader on the CME, NYMEX, COMEX and NYFE and he managed money for one of the largest hedge funds and ran a prop trading desk for Credit Suisse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *