Money is essential to survival in modern socio-economic systems. Some people do survive without money, but it is rare. The need for money to survive has been the norm for a long time, but not as long as you might think. The table below shows when money replaced bartering in various societies around the world:
| Country | Approximate Transition Period | Key Developments |
|---|---|---|
| Mesopotamia | c. 3000 BCE | Use of silver and barley as currency; early trade systems. |
| Egypt | c. 2500 BCE | Introduction of gold and silver as mediums of exchange. |
| China | c. 1000 BCE | Use of cowry shells, then metal coins; paper money introduced in the 7th century CE. |
| India | c. 600 BCE | Use of punch-marked coins; introduction of standardized currency. |
| Greece | c. 600 BCE | Development of coinage in city-states; widespread use of silver coins. |
| Rome | c. 300 BCE | Establishment of a complex monetary system with coins. |
| Medieval Europe | c. 800 CE | Use of silver coins; emergence of banking systems. |
| Japan | c. 600 CE | Introduction of coins; later adoption of paper money in the 17th century. |
| Ottoman Empire | c. 1300 CE | Use of silver and gold coins; introduction of paper money in the 19th century. |
| United States | 18th - 19th century | Transition from barter to currency with the establishment of the U.S. dollar in 1792. |
| Russia | 17th century | Introduction of silver rubles; gradual shift from barter to currency. |
| Africa | Varies by region | Many regions transitioned to currency systems during the colonial period (19th - 20th centuries). |
I'm most familiar with the US socio-economic system. It is curious that it is the newest country on the list to convert. It is not a surprise that survivalists want to barter. It is also interesting to note that the US was founded by people seeking refuge from the screwed up socio-economic systems in Europe. One might argue that the root cause of waves of immigrants arriving in the US have always been and continue to be refugees of unfair socio-economic systems around the world. This phenomenon is not unique to the US in modern times. Exoduses of all kinds have occurred throughout history for the same reason.
Given that US laws are rooted in a democratic republic to provide civil liberty, is it possible to create a system that allows money to be the basis of "freedom" and "equality". Given that capitalism is the dominant "philosophy" about how a system should work to provide this, the terms freedom and equality are highly subjective. To a certain extent, wealth is the basis upon which freedom and equality is based. However, the principle of freedom does not require wealth, at least in theory. In practice, this is not true. There is a certain level of wealth required to be free to live a life that is above the level of survival.
Abundance, Scarcity and Human Behavior
The purpose of this article is to illuminate how to optimize socio-economic systems to provide an affordable, high-quality standard of living. This requires the population to feel resources are abundant. All animals have a curious behavior when they sense scarcity. They seek abundance, basically food and shelter. While in this "mode" they are unable to think about anything else. To have a high-quality standard of living, humans must be in "abundance" mode. It enables them to think clearly, innovate and generally enjoy life. Therefore, the socio-economic system succeeds or fails based on this indicator. One could poll the populace for things like the effect of inflation, poor wages etc. to determine how balanced the feeling of abundance or scarcity is. Another way is to measure innovation and productivity, which are a result of the populace being in abundance or scarcity mode.
Again, the basis of the sense of abundance or scarcity in the populace is based on the fuel running the socio-economic system. In all modern societies, this is money. In modern times, social media gives a false impression about wealth. It is safe to assume that the people you measure your wealth against are misrepresenting their wealth. Therefore, you will likely believe you are living in scarcity compared to others in your social media circle. This includes the media in general. This basically pushes the "significance" button in humans.
Humans have an innate need for significance. Many equate significance with accomplishment or the meaning of life. Steve Jobs wanted to "make a dent in the universe" his entire life, for instance. This is rather extreme, but you get the point. Those who believe in abundance, attract wealth. This may be considered success, but let's not go there. Mentally balanced people do not consider money as measure of success or wealth. It is common for people with massive assets to be mentally unbalanced. These people often do not consider themselves successful. They may contribute many technological things to society, but their methods are usually at the expense of the "little people".
The Effect of Situational Change
The discussion above assumes steady state. In reality, situations change. The most common change is the loss of income, usually transitioning from being employed to unemployed and vice-versa. The result of an unsustainable lifestyle becomes a situational change (say repossession of a home or car). This is money based, specifically income does not keep pace with expenses. This triggers a sense of scarcity.
Suddenly becoming unemployed has a huge effect on human psyche. The company may believe their methods of "separation" are reasonable, but nothing is reasonable about changing someone's situation overnight. In Europe, labor laws require a company to notify employees that they have become redundant. At this point, the employee may seek employment elsewhere for a rather long period of time. Failing this, the employee is terminated. Although this has a less dramatic impact on the psyche, it is traumatic none-the-less.
Recognizing the effect of situational change allows us to consider methods for dealing with it to avoid feeling a threat to survival. Avoiding situational change is a less effective method because change is constant and ever accelerating. Amassing massive wealth provides some protection, but amassing wealth normally increases standard of living, and therefore the strategy is not immune to situational change. The numbers are just different.
Summary
The principles posited above are the basis of other articles posted on this website. You may or may not agree with them. If you don't agree, maybe this website isn't for you. If you do agree or find it intriguing, you may also enjoy other posts consistent with these principles and line of reasoning.