While banditry can work out in the short term; it pretty much always ends up the same way. There aren’t a lot of old gangsters walking around.
There are actually fascinating theories that the origin of money is not as a means of replacing a barter system, but rather as a way of keeping track who owed favors to each other. IOUs, so to speak.
I do not see how that is possible considering I have no clue who the second last owner of a cash was before me, most of the time.
Modern cash systems involve anonymity and do not inherently keep track of the ownership history of money (as I noted). This anonymity is a fundamental feature of cash and many forms of currency today. Sure, early forms of currency might have functioned in small, close-knit communities and in such contexts, people were more likely to know each other’s social debts and relationships.
My point about cash being anonymous was meant to highlight how modern currency differs from the historical concept of money as a social ledger. This contrast is important because it shows how much the role of money has evolved.
These early promissory notes were more like coupons that were redeemed by the merchants. It didn't matter how many times a coupon was traded. As a good merchant, you knew how many of your notes you had to redeem because you're the one issuing the notes.
What I remember from the rational optimist - with trust, trade is unlimited.
what I remember from debt - just too much, need to read it.
That said, why would an investor give money to altman if he is untrustworthy? it just gets worse and worse.