I meant that once money was invented, man could store the excess production from their land in a currency. Before the advent of money, a farmer could only make what they could trade, before it spoiled.
Discussion
Ah. That is a much clearer point and I wouldn't argue with that.
Before money, there wasn’t any incentive to acquire as much land as one could.
I can't really agree with that, though. I think that's at least one or three steps too far without any real corroboration that I know of or can think of
I’d like to hear why you think that’s wrong?
What incentive would there to be own a large tract of land if you can’t store the wealth that it produces?