We're going to talk about money, the stuff that makes the world go 'round.

我們要來談談金錢，可以讓世界運轉的東西

I'm not very good at making it rain.

我不太擅長賺錢

Mr. Green! Mr. Green! I'm sorry, but money doesn't make the world go round.

Green老師！抱歉，但錢沒辦法讓世界運轉

It's actually conservation of angular momentum. It's the same thing that allows, like, figure

其實是角動量讓地球轉動的。就跟，例如說，花式溜冰選手

skaters to turn in circles.

在轉圈是一樣的道理

John: Look, me from the past. I know you came in fourth for physics, among all "C" students

聽著，過去的我。我知道在阿拉巴馬州1994年的州際十項學術錦標賽中

in the entire state of Alabama in the 1994 state academic decathlon tournament, but that

你在所有得到C等的學生中拿了物理殿軍，但

doesn't actually make you good at science.

這沒有讓你的理化變好

So, here is what economic textbooks say about money. In general it has three functions:

以下是經濟學對金錢的定義。廣義來說，錢有三種功能：

medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value. And its first function is by far

交易媒介、計量單位，和儲存價值。而第一個是目前為止

the most important.

最重要的

Like, this is a quote from my actual, physical high school econ text book: "In primitive

比如說，這是從我真實的高中經濟課本裡節錄的：「在原始經濟中，

economies, food might be traded for clothing, or help in building a house might be exchanged

食物會拿來換衣服，或幫忙蓋房子可以換得別人

for help in clearing a field. But exchange today in all economies -- market as well as

幫忙清理環境。但今日各種經濟中的交換 --不論是市場經濟還是計劃經濟--

command -- takes place through the medium of money."

都是以錢為媒介而達成。」

A couple things about that quote, first off, primitive is a cringe-y word. Secondly, a

關於這句話，第一，「原始」是個不明確的用詞。第二，

market economy is basically all economies these days, and a command economy is what

市場經濟基本上就是今日所有經濟的種類，計畫經濟是

we called the Soviet Union's economy back in the eighties.

我們所稱八零年代的蘇聯經濟

Anyway, money is very important to history--like, our old friend Adam Smith thought that, quote:

總之，錢對歷史而言是非常重要的--正如我們的老朋友，亞當斯密，所言

"property money and markets not only existed before political institutions, but were the

「金錢財產和市場不僅在政治體制出現前就存在，更是

very foundation of human society." Ehh, he was pretty into economies, so he was probably

人類社會的最基礎。」呃，他很著迷於經濟，所以可能

a little biased toward money, but it is important.

對錢有點偏心，但錢確實很重要

Smith also thought that before there was money, there was barter, but barter could be cumbersome;

Smith也認為，在錢被發明以前，人們以物易物，但那有時是很不方便的

like if I make cheese and you make shoes, and you're lactose intolerant, then barter

假如我製作起司而你生產鞋子，但你有乳糖不耐症，結果以物易物無法成功

breaks down because I need shoes, but you don't need cheese. Then I have to live like

因為我需要鞋子，但你不需要起司。因此我便活像個

a hobbit and get this very powerful ring, it's like, really stressful, I end up having

哈比人，拿著這個魔力的戒指，這...很有壓力，結果我只好

to go to Mordor, it's just very complicated.

去找魔多，這真是複雜

So, Smith's ideas that rather than adapt to shoelessness, humans created a commodity that

所以，Smith的想法不是去適應沒有鞋子的生活，而是人類創造了一種價值品

they would agree upon ahead of time could be used in exchange, and that commodity is

大家都同意拿它來進行交換，而這個價值品正是

money. Yes, these are all ones.

錢。對，這些都是一塊紙鈔

Stan, I forgot to mention this, but you are buying lunch today.

Stan，我忘了說，但今天是你負責買午餐

Now, we generally think of money as like coins, or later, bills, but the material of money

如今，我們普遍認為 錢是硬幣 或之後的紙鈔，但可以當作錢的材料

is arbitrary. Smith wrote: "In all countries, however, men seem at last to have been determined

有很多種。Smith 寫道「在所有國家裡，然而，人們似乎有一些無可抗拒的理由

by irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this employment, to metals above all other

而偏好以金屬作為支付勞動力的價值品」

commodity." A sentence that shows you why we didn't teach him in Crash Course Literature.

看這句話就知道，他沒上過我們的文學速成班

But of course, it's really inconvenient to like, weigh and measure metals every time

不過，每次買賣都要秤金屬的重量

you wanna buy or sell something, so people hit upon the idea of making coins with a standard

一定很不方便，所以人們有了個點子，要製作大小和重量都一樣的錢幣

size and weight. Now, Smith is probably right that coins are much more convenient than bartering,

亞當斯密說得可能沒錯，硬幣比以物易物方便多了

right? Like, especially if the main store of value in your community is something like

對吧? 尤其當你們社群裡的主要資產是牛隻的時候

cattle. I mean, let's say you still need a pair of shoes, well, they aren't worth an

也就是說，假如你仍然需要一雙鞋，但鞋子的價值不比一整隻的牛

entire cow; trading in partial cows... fairly messy. It's also very bad for the cow's health,

而用牛隻的一小部分交易... 會很混論。這對牛隻的健康也很不好

and the cow loses a lot of its value, because, you know, it's no longer living.

還會讓整隻牛失去價值，因為，你懂的，那隻牛會死掉

So that all makes sense, but it's problematic when Smith universalizes that observation

所以這很合理，但問題在於 Smith把這個觀察的結果當成定律

by claiming that as a matter of convenience, every prudent man in every period of society

他聲稱，為了方便起見，任何時候的任何精明的人

must naturally have endeavored to create money.

都會自然而然地想要創造金錢

Smith -- man of the enlightenment that he was -- is positing that the creation of money

亞當斯密 ──真是個啟蒙者── 斷定，製造金錢

is part of human nature. Like, in the second chapter of Wealth of Nations, Smith explicitly

是人類的本能之一。例如，在《國富論》的第二章裡，亞當斯密直白的表示

says that the division of labour is the, quote: "consequence of a certain propensity in human

分工合作是所謂「人類天生傾向的結果，

nature ... to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another."

而運輸、以物易物或交換」

But yet, no! Like, what made sense for eighteenth century city and town dwellers like Adam Smith

但十八世紀的人們（例如亞當斯密）所認同的概念

doesn't necessarily apply to like, all human beings over the course of many millennia.

不一定適用於所有人，好比如今的千禧世代

And if you don't believe me, you can just ask anthropologists. They love to talk about

如果你不相信我，你可以去問問人類學家。他們很喜歡談論這些

this stuff.

東西

So, here's the fascinating thing to me: when you look at places where the social order

好，對我而言，迷人的是：若是看那些

is not based on money, we find that people actually don't barter at all. So David Graeber's

沒有金錢制度的社會，那兒的人們實際上不會以物易物。David Graeber的書

book "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" surveys the literature of anthropology and discovers

《債務：最初的5000年》調查了人類文學，並發現

that in societies without money, people don't actually barter, but they do find ways to

在沒有金錢的社會裡，人們不會以物易物，但他們有別的方法可以互換物品

exchange. He quotes an anthropologist named Caroline Humphrey, who concluded: "No example

他引用了人類學家Caroline Humphrey的結論，「單純、簡單的

of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence

以物易物經濟從來沒有被描述過，更不用說從中出現的

from it of money; all available ethnography suggests that there has never been such a thing."

金錢。所有已知的人種學都顯示，從來就沒有這種東西。」

Now, that's not to say that barter doesn't exist or that it never has, I mean, I just

這不代表以物易物不曾存在。我剛剛才

traded Stan two copies of my book Paper Towns for the candy left in this pinata. Big money,

拿兩本我寫的《紙上城市》跟Stan換到了這個皮諾塔裡面剩下的糖果。要錢，

no whammies. Two things of Sweet Tarts?! Stan! That's not fair.

不要詛咒。兩顆糖果？！Stan！這不公平

Alright, let's go to the Thought Bubble.

好的，我們一起進到畫面泡泡吧

So, according to Graeber, barter was reserved for trade between strangers, even enemies.

根據 Graeber，以物易物是陌生人，甚至敵人之間的交易

For most of human history, humans lived in small communities, and in those small communities,

大部分的人類歷史中，人們住在小型的社群裡。在那些社群裡，

most exchange took place using forms of credit. Basically, when people know each other well,

多數的交換是以信用的方式呈現。基本上，當人們熟識彼此

they're willing to trade with the future expectation that what one gives today will be repaid at

他們就會願意與之交易，期望在未來得到今日給予物品的回饋

some future date with something of roughly equivalent value. So in small, localized communities,

拿回約略等值的物品。所以在小型的地方社群當中

everyone is in debt to everyone else, and there's no real need of physical money, like

所有人都有負債，但不需要用硬幣之類的實體金錢

coins, as a way of keeping a count, because, you know, you remember when someone owes you

而是一種記帳的方式。因為，你懂的，你會記得別人欠你的

forty barrels of beer, or whatever.

四十桶啤酒，或其他東西

We see this historically in the early civilizations of the Fertile Crescent, where the basic monetary

我們能在歷史中的兩河文明看到這個現象，那兒的金錢計算單位是

unit was the shekel, and one shekel's weight in silver was the equivalent of a bushel of

shekel，而一shekel的銀和一蒲耳的大麥一樣重

barley. Money in Ancient Sumer was actually created by bureaucrats in order to keep track

古蘇美人的錢是官僚創造的，用來追蹤

of resources and move things back and forth between departments. But that doesn't mean

並且在部門之間運送物資。但這不代表

that silver actually circulated freely. Graeber writes: "While debts were calculated in silver,

銀可以自由流通。Graeber寫道：「雖然債務是用銀來計算，

they didn't have to be paid in silver."

但他們不必用銀支付債務。」

So while some people seem to think that money is naturally backed by precious metals, usually

有些人認為，金錢應該有珍貴金屬最為擔保，通常是

gold or silver, that doesn't seem to have been the case. It was enough to establish

金或銀，但事實似乎不是如此。要確立

that something was worth a shekel or a fraction thereof, and then trade for something of equivalent

一個物品的價值，是一塊或是一小塊shekel，並且拿來換另一個等值物品

value -- meat, or whatever else, without actually having to have the shekels change hands.

不論是肉還是別的，是不需要實際拿著shekels的

And this was especially helpful in economies where taxes and payments to workers were both

這對一些經濟體特別重要，像是稅收和工資都用穀物支付

in grain, rather than money.

而非用金錢支付的經濟體

Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, first, Graeber blows our minds by telling us that Adam Smith

謝啦，畫面泡泡。所以，首先，Graeber顛覆了我們的想像，告訴我們

was all wrong about money evolving from barter societies, but what about credit as the precursor to money?

亞當斯密是錯的，錢沒有從以物易物演化出來。但，信用能當作金錢的前身嗎?

I mean, it's basically saying that credit cards aren't an advancement so much as they're

這基本上表示了 信用卡不是什麼大幅的進步，因為它們帶人們

a return to the glorious past, except instead of trust, there are like, large, faceless

回到了輝煌的過去，雖然除了信用以外，它們就好像典型的大企業

corporations with the power to sue you.

能夠控告你的大企業

So the essence of credit is debt, and at least according to Graeber, that's the glue that

所以信用的本質是債務，至少就Graeber而言，這是維繫社會秩序的強力膠

holds social orders together, at least, if you consider debt at its heart, to be about

至少，如果從債務的內涵去看，這關乎於義務

obligation. At least one of the things that binds us together as a community is the recognition

把整個社群連結在一起的其中一個原因，是我們的認知

that we owe our neighbors something and that they owe something to us in return. It's like

知道自己欠鄰居們一些東西，而他們也欠我們一些些。這就好像

keeping your lawn mowed so that you can keep your neighbor's property value high. It doesn't

定期修剪草皮，讓你鄰居那塊地的價值維持在較高的價格。擁有一塊草皮

make sense to have a lawn -- they're expensive and time consuming, and you can't eat grass.

是沒有意義的 -- 那又貴又耗時，而且你不吃草

But you take care of your lawn for the same reason your neighbors take care of theirs.

但你照顧好自己的草皮，為的是跟鄰居 照顧草皮 一樣的原因

Out of the sense of mutual obligation.

出於一種互相的責任感

But money changes our understanding of those obligations, right? Because once we're able

但金錢改變了我們對那些義務的理解，對吧？一旦我們能

to put a price on our obligations, we can make them transferable, which wouldn't be

為自己的義務標價，我們就能轉移他們，而這不可能不透過金錢

possible without money. Like, for instance, it allows you to hire someone to mow your

例如，這讓你可以雇用某人來為你修草皮

lawn for you, but Graeber argues that money, especially in the form of coinage, also may

但Graeber也說，錢，尤其是硬幣的形式，可能帶來

chattel slavery, possibly.

奴役制度

So in West African social orders before the arrival of Europeans, money was used, but

在西非社會，金錢 在歐洲人到來之前就已被使用

only for weddings, funerals, and other activities that like, cemented human relationships. And

但只有在婚禮、葬禮之類有密切情誼的活動中使用。

the money largely had symbolic value. But when Europeans arrived, they introduced monetized

當時的錢僅是價值的象徵。但是歐洲人來到這裡之後，他們帶來了金錢

trade into the system, and in the process, transformed that system. Money was no longer

交易系統，並且在這個過程中改變了原有的系統。金錢不再是

about transferring value to solidify relationships between individuals and families; it was about

以交換價值品的方式，強化人們和眾多家庭之間的交情；而是拿來

quantifying debt and also making it transferable.

量化債務，並且讓它能夠轉換流通

So, Graeber's theory links money as we know it to slavery and war, like, coins began to

所以，Graeber的理論把錢連結到我們所熟悉的奴隸制和戰爭。例如硬幣在西元前600年左右

be used in India, China, and the soon to be Persian province of Lydia, almost simultaneously,

開始在印度、中國，還有幾乎同時開始的波西莉迪亞，流通

all around 600 BCE. And in Graeber's view, this happened because this was a period of

Graeber認為，這是一個過渡期

time that saw a shift from earlier forms of honor-based warfare, like, what is described

由早期《伊里亞德》所描述的榮譽戰爭

in the Iliad, to a new, more state-based warfare.

到新的國家戰爭

Armies started fighting over things like territory and resources, rather than, like, kidnapped

軍隊變成為了國土或資源而戰，而不是為了被綁架的妻子

wives. So in a-- oh, it's time for the open letter!

所以在-- 喔！是時候來看看公開信了！

But first, let's see what's inside my globe today. Oh, look, it's a molten core of nickel

先來看看今天我的地球裡面有什麼。看哪，是鎳和鐵組成的液態地核！

and iron! Can--can you turn into coins? Oh! Stan! Look how rich I am! Virtually.

你可以變成錢幣嗎？噢！Stan！看我現在多有錢...虛幻的

Thought Bubble's clearly much better at making it rain than I am. An open letter to honor-based warfare.

就賺錢而言，畫面泡泡比我厲害多了。一個給榮譽戰爭的公開信：

Dear Honor-Based Warfare, um, I guess now is the time in the video that I have to tell

親愛的榮譽戰爭，嗯，我想現在是時候告訴你

you that I don't entirely agree with Mr. Graeber. Like, with the Iliad we were telling ourselves

我不完全同意 Graeber 先生 了。讀過《伊里亞德》的我們一直告訴自己

a story about why we went to war, right? We went to war not for resources, but for glory.

我們是如何走向戰爭的，對吧？我們發動戰爭不是為了資源，而是為了光榮

Honor. Now, I don't want to sound cynical and disbelieving, but we still tell ourselves

榮譽。我不想表現得憤世嫉俗、不願相信，但我們一直在告訴自己

those stories. These days, the President rarely goes on TV and says, "You know why we're going

這些故事。現在，總統不會在電視上告訴大家：「你知道我們為什麼

to go to war? We need resources." No, we still say it's about honor and ideas and standing

要打仗嗎？我們需要資源。」不會，我們依舊說這是為了榮譽或保護弱小

up for the defenseless, and et cetera, which is all about as historically convincing as

如此這般，而這一直以來都跟《伊里亞德》一樣有說服力。

the Iliad. In short, honor-based warfare, I'm not entirely convinced that you, you know,

簡而言之，榮譽戰爭，我不全然相信你的存在

exist. Best wishes, John Green.

John Green上

Anyway, so in all three of these governments in India, China, and Lydia, they were pretty

總之，當時的印度、中國和莉迪亞政府的規模

small scale, especially compared to the empires that would soon come, but they built their

和即將到來的帝國比起來都特別的小，但他們的權威建立在

power on professional armies that needed to be paid, and coins were a great way to pay

需要領薪水的職業軍人上，而硬幣是很好的支付方式

them. It just works much better than like, trying to split up the plunder among everybody

這運作起來比 讓大家分配掠奪到的戰利品 要好的多了

The plundering method of payment is just like a garage sale. The people who get there early

用戰利品付薪水就像是跳蚤市場。先到的人

get all the good plunder, and then the rest of the people, they're just left dividing

就搶得到好東西，其他人只剩下

up, you know, old clothes.

那種，你懂的，舊衣服

Also, in Graeber's view, states began to encourage the use of coins because of the uncertainty

同時，Graeber 認為，國家開始鼓勵人們使用錢幣，因為戰爭帶來許多不確定性

of war -- like, violence creates uncertainty for merchants, and decreases the likelihood

動亂為商業帶來不確定性，讓商人們較不願意

that they will accept payment in the form of some kind of trust-based credit arrangement.

接受以信用作為支付

And soldiers aren't known for accepting credit as payment, either, because, you know, soldiers

軍人們也不接受信用當作支付，因為他們很清楚

are keenly aware that they might die soon. So, according to Graeber, this combination

自己隨時可能戰死。所以，據Graeber所言，「戰爭」和「國家形成」

of war and state-building led to the rise of coinage. And then in order to keep paying

帶來了金錢制度的流傳。為了不斷發出軍餉

soldiers, rulers, like, say, Alexander the Great, needed to continue their conquests.

統治者們，好比亞歷山卓大帝，必須持續征服他方

So you need an army in order to have an empire, and your army only likes to be paid in coins.

例如你需要一個軍隊，以控制一個帝國；而你的軍隊只想要拿到錢幣當作薪水

Now, you can seize some sweet, sweet metal plunder and then melt it down and make coins,

你可以掠奪一些金屬物品，然後把它們重新鑄造成金幣

but with an empire-sized army, that's not gonna cut it. You need more silver. Where

但對一個帝國的軍隊而言，這是不夠的。你需要更多的銀礦

are you gonna get new silver? Mining. Nope, Stan, not miming, I said "mining", don't ever

那要去哪裡找銀礦呢？挖礦。不，Stan，不是搞笑默劇(音近挖礦)，是「挖礦」。不要

put mimes in Crash Course again.

再亂放默劇的照片了

So now you need a steady supply of miners; fortunately, you've conquered a bunch of people,

所以你需要一批穩定的挖礦勞力；幸運地，你已經征服了一群人

so you have lots of prisoners of war, and now you have slavery.

你擁有許多戰俘，所以你有了一群奴隸

This military-coinage slavery complex was described explicitly in the Arthashastra,

如此 軍隊和錢幣帶來的奴隸制度 在《政事論》裡被描述得很清楚

a political guidebook written by Minister Kautilya for the Mauryan dynasty, that made

《政事論》是首席大臣考底利耶為孔雀王朝寫的政治手冊，這也說明了

it clear that coins and markets sprung up, above all, to feed the machinery of war. He

錢幣和市場的出現，特別是由戰爭所需。

wrote: "The treasury is based upon mining, the army upon the treasury; he who has the

他寫道：「寶物建立在挖礦之上，而軍隊建立在寶物之上；擁有軍隊和寶物的人

army and the treasury may conquer the earth."

可以征服全世界。」

And Graeber says that China followed a similar pattern: he writes, "The same fractured political

而Graeber 說，中國也遵循了類似的模式，如他所寫：「同樣架構的政治樣貌

landscape, the same rise of trained, professional armies, and the creation of coined money largely

同樣興起的受訓、專業軍隊，還有為了支付軍隊而創造的錢幣」

in order to pay them." So, if money is a creation of the state and its military, then it follows

所以，如果金錢是國家和軍隊之下的產物，它就會隨著

that when the state fails, as it did in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire,

國家一起沒落，就好比西羅馬帝國滅亡後

coinage largely disappears. And that's exactly what happened, actually, but of course, that

錢幣大大地消失一樣。這是真實發生的，其實；但這當然

doesn't mean that transactions failed to take place or that trade completely disappears,

不代表交易不再進行、貿易全然消失

but it did decline a lot. And in situations like that, people often revert to the virtual

僅管貿易確實減少了許多。在像這樣的情況下，人們通常會回歸到 我們前面提到的

credit systems that we talked about earlier: the ones that rely more on personal connections

最初的信用系統：更依賴人際連結

than on like, state enforcement.

而非國家力量的系統

So Adam Smith's origin myth of money -- that it derives from people's natural desire to

所以亞當斯密對金錢起源的猜測 -- 認為金錢源自於人們自然的慾望，想要

make barter more convenient through the creation of a medium of exchange -- really doesn't

用交易媒介讓以物易物變得更方便 -- 並不

hold up to scrutiny. I mean, there are clearly examples of an alternate history where production

符合我們的觀察。也就是說，歷史中顯然有許多例子告訴我們

and exchange work okay without actual coins or bills changing hands. It's kind of like

交易不需要實際的轉手錢幣，就可以順利進行。這跟現實生活

today, actually -- money works as long as there is some form of trust and a way to make

有點像，其實 -- 金錢要能運作，只需要某種形式的方式和信用，讓

people meet their obligations. People used to feel obligated because failure to meet

人們可以履行義務。過去的人們很有責任感，因為不履行債務

their obligations would hurt their standing in their small, localized communities, and

會讓他們在小小的地方社群裡失去立足點；如今

now we meet our obligations because otherwise, like, people take our houses or whatever.

我們也得履行義務，否則我們的房子可能會被扣押之類的

But while we have evidence that money, as we conceive of it today, isn't necessary for

雖然我們有時認為金錢對交易而言不是必要的

exchange, it IS necessary, or, at least, very useful, for states, and I think states are