How Money Is Still Relevant For Scientific Analysis

That was then. Now we use fiat money or non-commodity money which is just another way of saying, money not backed by gold or any other commodity. So the big question is, how is our money valued?

In the book Money and Class in America written by Lewis Lapham, the way Americans look at money is exposed. It compares other nations view on monetary value against that of the Americans. It is a fact that we place more value on money than anything else. This book illustrates the corruptness of the “American Dream” as it focuses money as the “currency of the soul” and through the dream, men remain free to rise or fall. Their life is the product of the effort and the decisions put forth by them.

Money has been been a big central network in developing our country today. Back then people used to barter items with others, so they could get different things they may need things like corn, fish, wheat, and etc. Salt was another commodity money salt was very difficult to obtain mainly in the inner countries and it is very good to cook with because it adds flavor to your food. In the south people became so wealthy because they didn't use money either there was a system called “Mit’a” from the age of 15 young Incan males had to do physical labor to state of a set of days. They built public buildings and places in return the government all the basic necessities of life food, clothing, tools, housing and, etc. The first known currency

Money is the life force of all of society. In every aspect, money determines the value of good, services, and even people’s lives. As we breathe air to function, society relies on finances to function. And if society, the unity of humanity, relies on money, than the leaders of society want to limit and control it to withhold their power over humanity. They do this by limiting what can be bought and sold, while also controlling how much different things cost. These limitations allow our leaders to control our money and, through that, our value and influence to society.

The primitive monetary instruments had a profoundly dynamic assistant nature, had no inborn quality. Their operation did not suggest the utilization of any particular item, but rather just the reference to a theoretical money related unit. Regardless of the possibility that the unique money related unit were symbolized by a given particular stock, this stock never took an interest in the operations, since what was implied was to make a conceptual reference to its worth, and not to trade different merchandise for it. Hence, currency was not, subsequently, created by a flash of brilliance, but rather originated from a need, and its development has reflected, at every time, the readiness of man to orchestrate its currency features to the reality of its economy. Perhaps even more importantly, invention of currency was the mother step in a new monetary system that has led to the birth of electronic banking and credit cards. To infer, pretty much as human advancement from viciousness to development has relied on upon the invention of currency, future advancement will rely on another definition and utilization of

To bring the situation under control, in 1917 the French began to accept cowries for tax payments in an attempt to “destroy them and make them too scarce to circulate as money” (Saul 2004: 97). Village Elders thus used their hoarded cowries for tax payments, but little else other than for what they considered to have great cultural or ritual value such as weddings, funerals, and the like. In this way, cowries evolved into special purpose money almost by default, but intially cowries were a circulation currency before ‘government’

2)medium of exchange A medium of exchange is an object that is generally accepted in exchange for goods and services.

Monetary values have changed throughout history because problems presented in each system of commerce. Bartering was among the earliest forms of commerce to present a problem. It did not establish monetary value in anything specific, allowing an individual’s wants or needs to be deemed monetary values. Each seller could make exchange requests based on different things. For example, a starving man could deem grain a commodity if he only manufactures luxury goods. Based on his hunger, the starving man can request to make an exchange of his luxury good with farmers for grain. Given that luxury goods are not a necessity, nor desired by everyone, the farmers can refuse his offer. The man would have to barter with a third party to acquire whatever the farmers were willing to make an exchange for. Inconsistent commodities in bartering made transactions inefficient because it could require multiple exchanges. Standards were established to combat the inefficiency of bartering through establishing value in one set commodity that all would accept. With a standard, the man could obtain grain directly from the farmers because it is mandated that the standard be accepted as debt payment. Therefore, it is more efficient to have a standard which only requires one transaction than to barter. For a matter of convenience, value transferred from virtually any object to specific resources. A common resource used for standards is metal. In early empires and recent nations, gold and/or silver

When silver and gold was discovered in North America the Europeans brought it back to Europe, and began to use it as currency. Land, and trade were the main source of money before the New World was founded, so this threw the previous lords, that made their money from their land, poor, and made the sailors, and markets keepers

controlled the society he lived in. In the process, he provides an exposition for his vision

Mr Liapis’ lecture aimed at money’s performance on a number of unprecedented functions and its properties. More specifically, he discussed the lack of

However, the issue with Martin’s conclusion is that he fails to support his claim that money was truly accepted as credit among more than just a few. His evidence better defends the position that money has always operated like transferable credit. Martin does point to a few scholars that agreed with him, like Lowndes and Law, but these were revolutionary ideas and were either rejected or their plans failed miserably. By accidentally defending the position that money operates like credit so well, while neglected other major parts of his thesis, Martin undermines it and draws the reader’s attention in another

Despite the monetary systems of classical colonialism being much less complex than those of neocolonialism and post-colonialism, the monetary aspects of classical colonialism are a completely separate category of discrimination upon the disadvantaged. Indigenous tribes often had their own unique methods of accounting and organizing transactions. These methods were sufficient in determining tribal obligations (Goswami, 1984, p. 56-60). During the colonial period in Africa, “Colonial governments established uniform monetary systems and abolished pre-existing currencies, usually without compensation” (Manning, 1974, p.

Money has different meaning for different level of people. Some see money as food, shelter or a roof on their top, however it means pleasure and enjoyment for wealthy group of society. Money has an essential role in shaping societies, it enables the economy to grow and helps people to have better health and education. Furthermore, money has direct relation to inequality. Inequality acers when the wealth is unevenly distributed within the society, in other words the unequal distribution of resources among the people, such as money, education, time and so on. The relationship between money and inequality could be further explained from the findings of Michael Sandel’s argument, money in the form of debt in china, distribution, exchange and consumption of coffee.

Throughout history, money and the nature money have been defined and redefined from economist to economist, however, at its foundation, money serves as a standard of valuation, a means of exchange, and a mode of payment. Of course, not all societies subscribe to this rigid definition of currency because cultures have existed with economies based on barter or currencies that don’t meet the conventional interpretation of money, and in the case of the Tiv culture, both general and special purpose currencies have existed for the trading of different types of goods. In Paul Bohannon’s article, “The Impact of Money on an African Subsistence Economy”, he argues that the introduction of a general purpose currency fundamentally changed the nature of Tiv culture because it altered their previously multi-centric economy and changed their traditional methodology of trading and valuation of categories of goods.