Nostr Web Client

What's the Austrian Economics take on Inca and Aztec empires not converging on silver as money?

#asknostr nostr:nprofile1qqsyx708d0a8d2qt3ku75avjz8vshvlx0v3q97ygpnz0tllzqegxrtgpg3mhxw309ahhsarjv3jhvctkxc685d35093rw7pkwf4xwdrww3a8z6ngv4jx6dtzx4ax5ut4d36kw6mwdpa8ydpkdeunyutzv9jzummwd9hkutce3hvah

Splintern 2mo ago 💬 2

OK.... I think I have the answer.... Hear me out.

Sound money is a coordination tool for civilisation. High entropy money (inflation) destroys society by reducing trust. Civilisation needs some upper limit on the inflation rate to work at all.

Incas are weird because they used grain as money (terrible stock to flow), but were somehow able to produce cities of 100-130k population. To me, this should be impossible as a coordination excerise without at least converging on silver as money.

I read a magnificent book by Julian Jaynes called "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of of the bicameral mind". Jaynes argues eruditely, although on the face of it, completely batshit crazy, that humans evolved consciousness in two steps. The first step essentially involved imagined voices in our heads similar to schizophrenics today. People interpreted this as the voice of God. Jaynes argues that this changed around 1100BC on the Euro-Asian landmass but lasted until the Spanish incursions in South America.

I think Incas not converging on silver, yet coordinating society at scale is evidence that they weren't conscience in the sense that we are today.

nostr:nevent1qqsphnkftus7tqj78zwpux0krpgdaa46tdr7mc7jwn07pmaagejdj2spramhxue69uh5ummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjsygz986uuz568vnkz8frkj5cwdc88c83pqczfkla9me0mpcc7t7gzeypsgqqqqqqsnedjr8

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Toxic Bitcoiner 2mo ago 💬 2

They’re both strange anomalies. ChatGPT: “The Inca had a redistribution system managed by the state. People paid taxes in labor (the mit’a system), and the government redistributed food, textiles, and goods. There was little need for a circulating currency.” Cc nostr:npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnl nostr:npub1t42gfjzfv74v8xrv65f2lrwd65jr85ysrtdmkkfrvqgcss5r4g0qk487qz

Also, what’s the 2nd step?

Splintern 2mo ago

Second step is basically what we have today. Inner monologue etc... He explains as a step above a animal where instead of just instinctively doing something, you have a voice (God, Ancestor, etc) tell you what to do. Fucking great book... If it's right, it helps explain quite a lot mental problems like schizophrenia and Tourettes.

Toxic Bitcoiner 2mo ago

Have you seen this piece? https://www.onceinaspecies.com/p/once-in-a-species-73b

TLDR: Our species’ unique success (over other human subspecies) came not from raw IQ, or just tools or language, but from a neural wiring that emphasised abstract thought and a compulsive appreciation of scarce collectibles — enabling the development of proto-money (shell beads), large-scale coordination, and ultimately civilisation.

smalltownrifle 2mo ago 💬 1

It's not necessary that an economy will converge on the best money.

Governmental power structures can very well impede people from using what individuals think is better money.

And it's possible that people can voluntarily opt to use other forms of money, because that's what suits their needs and circumstances.

But they can't escape the consequences of using weaker money, like:

•Roundabout and complex production won't be engaged in.

•Time preference of people would tend to be high. Not much savings of deferred consumption.

•The options available to them to purchase in the market will be much less.

•The options available to them in terms of business ventures would also be limited.

•There will be a tendency in those who produce rice to direct the government does.

And it's not necessary that people will reject wealth redistribution as well.

Similar to what I said above, they won't be able to escape the consequences of redistribution:

•Investment in the production of goods that the market wants will not occur or be hampered.

•You'll find people who don't value their own bodies that much as they don't have full control over it, as a consequence of their labour being taxed. So you'll find that people fall sick or engage in self-abuse.

•Overall productivity will hit a ceiling.

•Those in government or those close to it will get quite wealthy while others get less wealthy.

It's also possible that people consent to such a system of slavery or serfdom as well.. you know, like people in every society at the moment do.

Splintern 2mo ago

I agree with you. My only reservation is how large a civilisation you can create without soundish money. My gut says >100k city is too big. I think Jaynes' theory is right and that helps explain it.