When you learn how money really works, you begin to understand just how diabolical our entire socio-economic system is. Inflation, recessions, boom-bust, the stock market, fractional reserve banking, interest rates... it's all rigged, a giant shell game, and it boils down to an invisible whip that the rich use to keep people working for things they don't really need and to pay taxes for the sole purpose of perpetuating a perverted economic system.
I don't know about you, but I have had down periods in my life, when I wasn't actually producing anything of value. If we actually used a barter economy then I would starve, or be reduced to sweating in a field growing plants. But since we live in a world where money is transferrable and credit is obtainable, I can weather those periods just fine and live in a decent house with air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter.
The best evidence that people really like to have transferrable currencies is that they develop independently in just about every market in the world. For example, ancient Africans used Cowry shells. Players of the videogame Diablo 2 used a particular ring, the Stone of Jordan.
While there's certainly fraud and even systemic failure at times, it's hard not to appreciate all that liberal economics has done for our quality of life.
It actually turns out that barter is one of the founding myths of modern economics. Notice that economics books always have these invented stories of quaint towns (or savage tribes) of people in the same community bartering; they don't actually offer historical evidence. Turns out there is none. When people trade in a community, credit systems predate currencies, which predates barter. This is the opposite of the usual myth (where everyone barters like fools, then they use currency, then they tech up to credit).
And they also make the strange assumption they'd be engaging in the "spot trade," which also is ahistorical. It's not like you'd come to me with shoes and I'd hand over a sack of potatoes. If we're neighbors, our relationship wouldn't be about market transactions (unless I suppose we're hostile and untrusting, so we'd better trade simultaneously so we don't rip each other off).
I was reading some artist biographies from the 1800s recently. What amazed me was the credit system that allowed them to work and travel nearly as freely a the modern hacker would do. Instead of credit cards you had a network of IOUs, which enabled the economy to keep going.
Of course much of that network got wiped out in the 30s recession.
It goes beyond that. Think about how very tenuous ordinary civilization is. Think about what would happen if you suddenly turned into a psychopath. How easy it would be to kill so many people around you. Jam a pen in someone's neck and they're dead. How easy would it be for the guy standing behind you in line to take your life? And that applies to everyone around you all the time. Every second of every day we are putting our lives in the hands of our fellow citizens. Once you come to grips with this you start to appreciate the little things and you recognize the importance, seriousness, and value of just being a decent human being to others.
I think it was on RadioLab where a primatologist mentioned how amazing an airplane flight is. Not the aerodynamics, but that hundreds of people sit jam-packed for hours and no one gets hurt. If you put that many monkeys or baboons or whatever in a giant metal tube for a few hours, it would be a bloodbath.
It's twisted but I always wonder the same thing. Why don't psychopaths "get" more people? If someone rings my doorbell I answer the door, I expect the person on the other side to be a rational human being. It wouldn't be too hard for the other person to just bum-rush me with a knife and take me out.
I think there may be an evolutionary factor involved, easier to survive in a group so there is an incentive not to harm those around you. Able bodies can warn of nearby danger and help fight off threats, as long as you aren't a threat to them and they aren't a thread to you you're golden. There's also the fact that most people are fairly content in society and like things to stay relatively constant. Nobody wants to risk the rest of their life by doing something dumb like even accidentally injuring someone, let alone purposefully killing someone.
Psychopaths kill plenty of people though. But it helps that the vast majority of people are not psychopaths, and they react when someone does something like kill someone. If you murder someone in front of someone else your opportunities for surprise go out the window, and so much of our lives are lived in public (long stretches of private time notwithstanding). The other thing is that humans, even psychopaths, are sentient. They have feelings, they need a motivation, a reward for killing. And suicidally trying to kill as many people as possible is, in most cases, not in the cards, which is another limiting factor. If you took, say, 1 ppm of all humans on Earth and suddenly exchanged their brains for typical movie "monster rules" then things would get very ugly very fast, but not indefinitely, they would be contained, killed, brought under control by the majority of sane folks.
Nevertheless, look at folks like Ted Bundy who had a very specific target for his murders and yet still killed dozens of people in his life.
Pyschopaths that twisted wouldn't get very far. It's the same thing with a disease; if it's very lethal and highly contagious, it's not actually very dangerous, because it will kill most carriers before it gets a chance to spread.
