It sounds like a simple question, but like a lot of simple questions, this one gets more and more slippery as you try to pin down the answer.
One way to understand money is to ask how people would exchange goods and services without it. Before the invention of money, buying and selling was carried out by bartering, that is, by trading one good or one service for another. Although bartering is simple, it has two important disadvantages compared to using money. First, it is inflexible; second, it does not provide a great deal of incentive for people to increase their productivity. Consider the following example.
Farmer Brown lives in a town with no formal monetary system. Every year, he plants corn in the spring and harvests it in the late summer. At harvest time, he trades his corn for whatever goods and services he can find in his immediate neighborhood.
Over the years, Farmer Brown has found that there is no point growing more corn than he can use to trade at harvest time. Although many people may want his corn, only a few of them have something he wants at the time the corn is available, and, if he waits too long, the corn will spoil. If he grows extra corn, he’ll just end up throwing it away. Later, during the winter, when Farmer Brown has nothing to trade, it’s hard for him to get the supplies he needs to support his family.
Farmer Green also grows corn, but he lives in an area in which gold coins are used as money. Instead of trading his corn for goods and services, Farmer Green sells it for coins. Although most of his money comes at harvest time, he is able to save some of it to use during the winter when he has nothing to trade.
As you can see, Farmer Green’s situation is better than Farmer Brown’s because Farmer Green is able to store his wealth for as long as he wants and spend it throughout the year as he sees fit. What is less obvious is that money gives Farmer Green another, much more important advantage over Farmer Brown.
Farmer Brown’s market is limited because he can sell corn to only those people who, at harvest time, happen to have something to trade with him. As a result, Farmer Brown has no motivation to produce more than the minimum amount of corn. In fact, any effort he puts toward growing extra corn or making his business more productive is just a waste of time.
Farmer Green, on the other hand, can sell to anyone with money and, hence, has a much larger market. Thus, he has a reason to grow as much corn as the market will bear. Moreover, if he can find a way to grow extra corn, he is motivated to develop new markets. Thus, Farmer Green is rewarded for making his farm as efficient and as large as possible. As a result, he spends time developing new ways to grow, harvest, store, and distribute corn. He can also use his money to buy better equipment which allows him to farm a larger area in the same amount of time.
If Farmer Green is at all ambitious, he may — with hard work, good planning, and some luck — be able to build an enduring business that will employ other people and create wealth for him and his family. Moreover, his business will encourage the development of other businesses such as those selling farm equipment.
Because Farmer Green can sell his corn for money, he will support the building of a railway line to help him distribute his products over a larger area. Once the railway goes in, it will not only expand Farmer Green’s market, it will bring new goods to all the people who live in the area. Over time, the people in Farmer Green’s town will become wealthier than the people in Farmer Brown’s town. As a result, they will pay more taxes, which will allow the town to build roads, schools and hospitals.
Obviously, this is a simple example, and I don’t want to pretend that economics is as simple as:
Farmer + Corn + Money = Automatic Prosperity
What I want to show you is that the idea of money, which we all take for granted, is crucial to our lives because it greases the wheels of economic activity. It is true, as Farmer Brown shows us, that it is possible to buy and sell without money. (“I’ll give you 20 baskets of corn for a cow.”) However, as Farmer Green shows us, if we want to engage in large-scale commerce, we need to base it on a well-developed monetary system.
There are two reasons why money is so important to Farmer Green. First, buying and selling with gold coins is a lot more convenient than trading food for animals.
Second, money offers Farmer Green a great deal of flexibility. If he were to trade his corn for, say, cows, he would be limited as to what he could do with the cows. He could milk them, eat them, breed them, or use their hides to make leather, but not much else.
Gold coins, on the other hand, are valuable because they represent an abstract idea. When Farmer Green sells his corn for money, he has a lot of choices because other people will accept the same coins as payment when he wants to buy something.
Aside from convenience and flexibility, the coins that Farmer Green receives have another quality that makes them suitable for buying and selling: they are fungible. “Fungible” means that an item is interchangeable with an equivalent item. Money is fungible because it is the amount that is important, not the specific coins or bills.
If Farmer Green, for example, sells a certain amount of corn for ten $5 gold coins, he doesn’t really care which 10 coins he receives; for practical purposes, all $5 coins are the same (as long as they are not counterfeit). However, if Farmer Green were to sell the corn for 10 cows, it would make a big difference which cows he receives. (A large, healthy cow is a lot more valuable than a small, poorly nourished cow.) Thus, gold coins are fungible; cows are not. As such, money allows us to store purchasing power, in a way that is infinitely more valuable than having to depend on nothing but barter.
We are now ready to define “money”:
Money is an abstract, fungible medium of exchange, used for the buying and selling of goods and services.
So where did money come from?
The first coins were minted between 640 BCE and 630 BCE in the Kingdom of Lydia, a region in west-central Asia Minor on the Aegean Sea, lying within modern-day Turkey. The Lydian kings created small pieces of metal with a standardized size and weight. These pieces of metal were then stamped with an emblem that verified their worth.
The Lydian coins sparked a commercial revolution. Lydian merchants started to trade a large variety of products, and the Lydian ruling class became very rich. As a result, the Lydians were responsible for some of the most important social innovations in history including the first retail market, the first brothel (sexual services being offered to the merchants who frequented the market), as well as the first dice (now that gambling was a lot easier).
The next great money-related invention was paper money, first used in China during the T’ang dynasty (618-906 CE), a golden age of Chinese culture. The Chinese emperors, however, did not use money to expand the economy in a way that benefited the general population. Rather, they confiscated all the gold and silver and then forced their citizens to use paper money. They did so for two reasons. First, they wanted all the gold and silver for themselves. Second, by eliminating the need to transport large amounts of coins from one place to another, the emperors were able to simplify the administration of the largest empire in the history of the world. Collecting taxes, for example, became a lot easier once everyone used paper money.
In the West, paper was not even invented until 1150 (in Spain), and the debut of paper money had to wait until the German printer Johann Gutenberg invented the first printing press with moveable type around 1436. Once money could be printed, it proved to have important advantages over coins: it was cheaper to produce and a lot more convenient.
Over the years, the nature of the “abstract, fungible medium of exchange” we use has changed enormously with most of the change coming in the last several generations.
In your grandparents’ day, money was stored in a wallet or purse, in a bank vault, and recorded on paper in a ledger. Today, most of your money is stored electronically on various computers. Indeed, within the United States, about 90 percent of all the money that exists right now is not in the form of cash (coins or paper money). Instead, it is stored electronically.
This is a tremendous achievement because the more intangible the form of money, the more the money supply can be controlled. For example, when the U.S. Federal Reserve deems it necessary to manipulate the money supply, it is not uncommon for them to create or destroy several billion dollars at a time, sometimes on a daily basis. (That, however, is a story for another time.)
Earlier, I said that the way to understand money is to ask how people would exchange goods and services without it. Can you imagine living in a world in which we didn’t have computers to store and manipulate our medium of exchange? Close your eyes and think about it for a few minutes.
Now you understand money.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
The greater question is... "Who controls the keys to the Grainary", a problem since the time of the Pharaohs, is it the Pharaoh, or the Priests, the Merchants or the military or do the people control the abundance created, harvested and stored. The problem with today's money it has been stolen by the few from the many and used as a weapon to dominate. The folly that the Federal Reserve manages the economy is the greatest fraud ever witnessed. You have a group of private banksters that issue credit to create a bubble then dry up the amount available to service the economy, a manufactured crises used to transfer the abundance of the harvest up to the few.
I leave you with this quote:
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
~ Woodrow Wilson
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
December 31, 2011 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Further as noted in the above article with the invention of mediums of exchange (coins and currency) the GANGBanksters (Moneychangers) realized that the people never asked for all of their money at the same time, therefore they could create more money than was actually available and loan it out "at interest" (Fractional Reserve Banking). They also learned it was much more profitable to loan money to governments, especially in wars, and make the victor responsible for the loser's debts. This happened at the Battle of Waterloo where the French Rothschilds loaned money to Napoleon and the British Rothschilds loaned money to Lord Wellington. As the Battle of Waterloo was fought Nathan Mayer Rothschild walked into the London Stock Exchange with his head down and furiously began selling his shares. What only Rothschild knew was that Wellington had won, the rest of the stock exchange followed suit thinking that Napoleon had won. Rothschild bought all the shares for pennies on the pound and bankrupted the Bank of England and the Stock Exchange in one fell swoop. The Criminal Rothschild Moneychanger Cartel then created the City of London Financial District.
Sound familiar? Think Washington DC and the Federal Reserve, both owned by the Rothschilds, and the Revolutionary War 1776 (fought over Colonial Script), the War of 1812 (fought because the Americans would not allow a Rothschild controlled Central Bank) The Civil War (also fought over a central bank) on up to the Greatest Fraud in history the establishment of the Federal Reserve (1913).
The true history of the world and America since 1776, and the march towards globalization is not what is taught in the history books. Look what happened to Lincoln and Kennedy, both tried to take away the power of currency from the Central GangBanksters and both paid the ultimate price. But that is not all, Stonewall Jackson's claim to fame was "I killed the Bank" meaning the 2nd Bank of the United States, the Rothschild's tried to assassinate Jackson but both pistols misfired.
Think what you may but ignorance of the Rothschilds is not an option, our forefathers fought them and I leave you with these two quotes and a website:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Goggle "Timeline of the Rothschilds"
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
December 31, 2011 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What kind of antisemitic bullcrap is this, contactjohn? Your timeline website is a good example of conspiracy theorist fantasies like Glenn Beck's, connecting anything to anything and getting many of the facts twisted or wrong.
The Rothschilds may not be worth defending, but neither are any of the other corporate kleptocrat families, Carnegies, Rockefellers, Duponts, Roosevelts, Koches, etc.
Great article though, really makes the way money works crystal clear.
hmarcuse (anonymous profile)
January 2, 2012 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What prevents Farmer Brown from making a deal with a customer for services or goods to be given in payment at a later date? You don't need money for that, just an IOU.
ChrisG (anonymous profile)
January 3, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Farmer Brown, better be harvesting his corn for seed rather throwing it away, though I understand the concept, and salt was used by the Romans' as currency. As the global economy continues to deteriorate, look for more bloodshed and civil strife, murder-for-profit and domestic terrorism in the months to come...
dou4now (anonymous profile)
January 3, 2012 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When I was in high school around 1970 I proposed moving to the Jell-O standard. It made as much sense as anything: if there was too much, we'd eat it; if there was too little, we'd make more. The older I get, the more sense it makes.
GregMohr (anonymous profile)
January 3, 2012 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The article is entitled, "What is money," but it explains how money is used, not what money is. Money is debt, period. Anyone who holds money, holds a debt from someone else that should theoretically be paid at some point in time. The more money a society has, the more debt there is.
Here's where it gets interesting. Farmer Green has his corn and let's say Sawyer Red has some wood products. Both are real and tangible. If they trade, then the real world is still in balance.
With money, some third party creates money out of nothing or out of something of very little value. Say I create dollar bills and it costs me .05 on the dollar to do so. As mentioned in the article with the example of the T’ang dynasty, I have to convince both Farmer Green and Sawyer Red that my .05 of paper is worth a dollar of their goods. So Farmer Green and Sawyer Red have an easier time selling goods and getting other goods in return, but Ruler T’ang is the real winner here, creating $1 out of $.05. So Ruler T’ang is the real holder, creator and exploiter of wealth while Farmer Green and Sawyer Red work their butts off to try to get more of the "currency."
The only way for this system can continue to function is for Ruler T’ang to continue to create more and more paper dollars, which as I mentioned before, is really debt. Eventually this house of debt always collapses and the game is started again by some other ruler.
TrailHacker (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)