This subject is one that has been more or less a major theme or interest of mine, and it is indeed intriguing to see how someone with a real financial background, and not a rank amateur like me, approaches the problem. As I pointed out in Babylon's Banksters, and as I will "hint at" in the upcoming Financial Vipers of Venice, our broad history of the development of currency or media of exchange is almost completely upside down.
The standard model would have it that mankind, in his primitive hunting-gathering stage, relied upon a purely localized system of exchange, barter, and hence, "economies" themselves were confined to small areas, since barter required the transport and exchange of physical goods. Then, we are told, came bullion and coins, then paper money, bills of exchange, and so on, and finally, credit instruments, securities, and so on.
Note the implicit assumption here: man in antiquity was primitive, as he gained in sophistication, civilizations became more complex, and so did their media of exchange.
But when one assumes the existence of a sophisticated civilization in High Antiquity, this whole economic-Darwinism scheme is thrown into a cocked hat, for what it would imply is that credit instruments or some form of bills of exchange came first, then coins and bullion, and then barter. Indeed, in modern times, barter emerged as a basis of international trade when Nazi Germany initiated a huge system of debt-free money, and the world central banks responded by locking Germany out of foreign markets. In effect, they simply refused to receive Nazi Reichsmarks in transactions. Germany responded by a system of barter exchange with Eastern Europe that worked more or less effectively. This is, of course, a vastly oversimplified history, and I am not arguing for or against Germany's currency system, merely pointing out that they did it.
The real point here is that we do not see barter emerging on a large scale first. In fact, we see systems of various media of exchange first, avoiding barter altogether, and our earliest records from Sumeria indicate that they were using bills of credit and exchange as circulating media of exchange, long before coinage or bullion was introduced. The point here is that this financial pattern is consistent with the view that there was a High Civilization prior to those of Sumeria and Egypt. We may infer that perhaps this is one reason economic and financial history is so badly distorted, for it is a way of disguising the real implications of what portions of the record show.
In this respect, I also pointed out that there are essentially two types of financial system, both intimately based upon larger cosmological and physics views. One viewing the system as a closed system, a zero sum game, in which debt is the primary feature. The other, views the system as an open system and able to generate information. We might call this an "equity-based" system.
With this prologue in mind, I ran across this interview with Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts, and it is about as succinct a statement of the debt-war complex as can be, a complex which in the coming Financial Vipers of Venice, and as I averred in Babylon's Banksters, is really a debt-bullion-slavery-empire complex. Enjoy:
See you on the flip side.