Of course there is evidence of private property 400 years ago and way further back. The ships that Columbus sailed were “owned” as private property. When a man goes into the forest and fashioned a tool it became his private property. The native Americans used various mediums of exchange such as wampum (c. 1510) for trade. Below is n…
Of course there is evidence of private property 400 years ago and way further back. The ships that Columbus sailed were “owned” as private property. When a man goes into the forest and fashioned a tool it became his private property. The native Americans used various mediums of exchange such as wampum (c. 1510) for trade. Below is non-exhaustive list of mediums of exchange.
9000 - 6000 B.C.: Cattle. ...
1200 B.C.: Cowrie Shells. ...
1000 B.C.: First Metal Money and Coins. ...
500 B.C.: Modern Coinage. ...
118 B.C.: Leather Money. ...
A.D. 800 - 900: The Nose. ...
806: Paper Currency.
Private property’s existence should not be in question. Rather, when did civilizations start to respect the ownership of private property is the better question.
Daniel, I wasn't talking about private property itself, but 'capital' in the economic sense, which is something someone owns that makes an income from its existence.
You are right that 'when did civilisations start to respect the ownership of private property is the better question' and that is the question I start with in the article I'm posting today. Capitalism requires private ownership of capital and that is a very recent change (1850s-70s in the UK).
You are again proving my point for me with the Columbus example: Columbus' ships were owned by the Spanish monarchy, specifically Queen Isabella. Likewise, before the 1800s in almost every nation state everything ultimately belonged to the king / emperor (and to lords / chiefs on a smaller level).
Neither is money capitalism, money can exist without it, although capitalism historically has relied upon it to exist. When it comes to the (ceremonial) trading of shells or of tribes trading cattle this was not capital and not capitalism. I'd encourage you to read 'David Graeber's 5000 Years Of Debt' to learn more about the history of money. But there was 195,000 years of human history without money (I'd argue the Sumerians invented it around 3000 BC).
My simple suggestion is that you read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell or for a fuller understanding of economics: Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. Every worker is a capitalist—skilled or unskilled. According to Mises, “capitalism is an economic system defined by a particular set of institutions, which include private property in the means of production (i.e. land, labor, and capital) and freedom of contract under the rule of law.”
It seems to me that Von Mises' definition proves my point - 'capitalism is an economic system defined by a particular set of institutions' Some of these institutions have only been around for 2-300 years, and they did not exist under Feudalism.
We seem to have a fundamentally different approach to where wealth comes from - I would encourage you to read Kropotkin's 'Our Riches' if you'd like to understand a different view - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/our-riches
Nate,
Of course there is evidence of private property 400 years ago and way further back. The ships that Columbus sailed were “owned” as private property. When a man goes into the forest and fashioned a tool it became his private property. The native Americans used various mediums of exchange such as wampum (c. 1510) for trade. Below is non-exhaustive list of mediums of exchange.
9000 - 6000 B.C.: Cattle. ...
1200 B.C.: Cowrie Shells. ...
1000 B.C.: First Metal Money and Coins. ...
500 B.C.: Modern Coinage. ...
118 B.C.: Leather Money. ...
A.D. 800 - 900: The Nose. ...
806: Paper Currency.
Private property’s existence should not be in question. Rather, when did civilizations start to respect the ownership of private property is the better question.
Daniel, I wasn't talking about private property itself, but 'capital' in the economic sense, which is something someone owns that makes an income from its existence.
You are right that 'when did civilisations start to respect the ownership of private property is the better question' and that is the question I start with in the article I'm posting today. Capitalism requires private ownership of capital and that is a very recent change (1850s-70s in the UK).
You are again proving my point for me with the Columbus example: Columbus' ships were owned by the Spanish monarchy, specifically Queen Isabella. Likewise, before the 1800s in almost every nation state everything ultimately belonged to the king / emperor (and to lords / chiefs on a smaller level).
Neither is money capitalism, money can exist without it, although capitalism historically has relied upon it to exist. When it comes to the (ceremonial) trading of shells or of tribes trading cattle this was not capital and not capitalism. I'd encourage you to read 'David Graeber's 5000 Years Of Debt' to learn more about the history of money. But there was 195,000 years of human history without money (I'd argue the Sumerians invented it around 3000 BC).
Nate,
My simple suggestion is that you read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell or for a fuller understanding of economics: Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. Every worker is a capitalist—skilled or unskilled. According to Mises, “capitalism is an economic system defined by a particular set of institutions, which include private property in the means of production (i.e. land, labor, and capital) and freedom of contract under the rule of law.”
It seems to me that Von Mises' definition proves my point - 'capitalism is an economic system defined by a particular set of institutions' Some of these institutions have only been around for 2-300 years, and they did not exist under Feudalism.
We seem to have a fundamentally different approach to where wealth comes from - I would encourage you to read Kropotkin's 'Our Riches' if you'd like to understand a different view - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/our-riches
I don't consider Sowell or Von Mises a serious economist, nor do most economists. They are right-wing philosophers, and I disagree with the basic assumptions of their philosophies. Maybe I'll do a review of 'Basic Economics' one of these days, although others economist don't seem to take it seriously - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/11d652t/is_basic_economics_by_thomas_sowell_a_good_book/
Well then read FA Hayek: Mises was his mentor.