The History Of Money

The first major treatise on monetary policy (De Moneta) was done by Nicole Oresme, the medievil philosopher, theologian, scientist and economist.  Employing arguments in De moneta (ca. 1355) that would eventually reverberate in the later Salamancan theologian Juan de Mariana’s Treatise on the Alteration of Money (1609), Oresme states that coinage is not the property of the sovereign but belongs to the entire community (cf. De moneta of Nicholas Oresme and English Mint Documents, ed. and trans. Charles Johnson [London: Thomas Nelson, 1956], 11, 37-38). According to Oresme, regulation of minting and coining is not the prerogative of the monarch alone but of a gathering of the realm’s inhabitants. Coinage, he insists, cannot be altered without the consent of the people’s representatives. Sherman observes that Oresme borrows essential arguments from Aristotle’s Politics in formulating his own position: “From the Politics come the distinction between tyranny and monarchy and the warning that power should not be unduly concentrated in any one segment of the community. Oresme’s argument that the king’s economic powers are subject to regulation by law and custom also derives from the Politics” (14).

Some immortal passages taken from De Moneta(he could have written this stuff about our present monetary system):   

"I am of the opinion that the main and final cause why the prince pretends to the power of altering the coinage is the profit or gain which he can get from it; it would otherwise be vain to make so many and so great changes. I propose therefore to give fuller proof that such gain is unjust. For every change of money, except in the very rare cases which I have mentioned, involves forgery and deceit, and cannot be the right of the prince, as has previously been shown. Therefore, from the moment when the prince unjustly usurps this essentially unjust privilege, it is impossible that he can justly take profit from it. Besides, the amount of the prince’s profit is necessarily that of the community’s loss. But whatever loss the prince inflicts on the community is injustice and the act of a tyrant and not of a king, as Aristotle says. And if he should tell the tyrants’ usual lie, that he applies that profit to the public advantage, he must not be believed, because he might as well take my coat and say he needed it for the public service. And Saint Paul says that we are not to do evil that good may come. Nothing should therefore be extorted on the pretence that it will be used for good purposes afterwards. Again, if the prince has the right to make a simple alteration in the coinage and draw some profit from it, he must also have the right to make a greater alteration and draw more profit, and to do this more than once and make still more. . . . And it is probably that he or his successors would go on doing this either of their own motion or by the advice of their council as soon as this was permitted, because human nature is inclined and prone to heap up riches when it can do so with ease. And so the prince would be at length able to draw to himself almost all the money or riches of his subjects and reduce them to slavery. And this would be tyrannical, indeed true and absolute tyranny, as it is represented by philosophers and in ancient history."

"The usurer has lent his money to one who takes it of his own free will, and can then enjoy the use of it and relieve his own necessity with it, and what he repays in excess of the principal is determined by free contract between the parties. But a prince, by unnecessary change in the coinage, plainly takes the money of his subjects against their will, because he forbids the older money to pass current, though it is better, and anyone would prefer it to the bad; and then unnecessarily and without any possible advantage to his subjects, he will give them back worse money. . . . In so far then as he receives more money than he gives, against and beyond the natural use of money, such gain is equivalent to usury; but is worse than usury because it is less voluntary and more against the will of his subjects, incapable of profiting them, and utterly unnecessary. And since the usurer’s interest is not so excessive, or so generally injurious to the many, as this impost, levied tyrannically and fraudulently, against the interest and against the will of the whole community, I doubt whether it should not rather be termed robbery with violence or fraudulent extortion."

"If the Italians or Romans did in the end make such alterations, as appears from bad ancient money sometimes to be found in the country, this was probably the reason why their noble empire came to nothing. It appears therefore that these changes are so bad that they are essentially impermissible."

Though the inflation of Oresme's day was considerably different to the present (it involved the debasement of gold and silver coin), it is every bit as relevant to the present inequities of the inflationary practices utilized by the Central Banks of the modern world by debasing their own fiat paper currencies.  His is a treatise on common sense and honesty as regards monetary policy; principles that defy the arrow of time.

   Another major influential economist was Juan De Mariana.  Mariana's most important book was the work published in 1605 with the title De monetae mutatione (On the alteration of money). In this book, Mariana began to question whether the king was the owner of the private property of his vassals or citizens and reached the clear conclusion that he was not. The author then applied his distinction between a king and a tyrant and concluded that "the tyrant is he who tramples everything underfoot and believes everything to belong to him; the king restricts or limits his covetousness within the terms of reason and justice."

From this, Mariana deduced that the king cannot demand tax without the consent of the people, since taxes are simply an appropriation of part of the subjects' wealth. In order for such an appropriation to be legitimate, the subjects must be in agreement. Neither may the king create state monopolies, since they would simply be a disguised means of collecting taxes.

***It is important to note that Mariana was the first one to advocate Tyrannacide (the removal of a prince or king from power, if he violates the public trust).  It is likely that Thomas Jefferson got many of his views contained in the Declaration of Independance from Mariana's works. 

And neither may the king, this is the most important part of the book, obtain fiscal revenue by lowering the metal content of the coins. Mariana realized that the reduction of the precious metal content in the coins, and the increase in the number of coins in circulation, is simply a form of inflation (although he does not use this word, which was unknown at the time), and that inflation inevitably leads to an increase in prices because "if money falls from the legal value, all goods increase unavoidably, in the same proportion as the money fell, and all the accounts break down."  It is from Mariana's work that the Austrian school of economics was derived (Von Mises etc.).

Mariana describes the serious economic consequences to which the debasement and government tampering with the market value of money lead as follows: "Only a fool would try to separate these values in such a way that the legal price should differ from the natural. Foolish, nay, wicked the ruler who orders that a thing the common people value, let us say, at five should be sold from ten. Men are guided in this matter by common estimation founded on considerations of the quality of things, and of their abundance or scarcity. It would be vain for a Prince to seek to undermine these principles of commerce. 'Tis best to leave them intact instead of assailing them by force to the public detriment."

JESUS FLIPS (many coins) 33 A.D.

Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being the one and only time we ever hear of him using force during his entire ministry.

So what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive?

For a long time the Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tax with a special coin called the half shekle. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no image of a pagan emperor on it.

It was to them the only coin acceptable to God.

But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, the money changers were in a buyers market and like with anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bare.

They made huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Jesus saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed the whole setup to be. "A den of thieves". Jesus' exposing of the money changers made him a target for them.

Once money is accepted as a form of exchange, those who produce, loan out and manipulate the quantity of money are obviously in a very strong position. They are the "Money Changers".

 

A brief time-line on the history of money

A sample of info from A Comparative Chronology of Money from Ancient Times to the Present Day Roy Davies & Glyn Davies, 1996 You might also want to review The History of Money by Jack Weatherford.   Random House 1997.

 

A less brief history of money