prompter: How would have the world changed and how would it look like today if barter were the only way of payment up to this day?

assistant: I believe you meant to ask: "How would the world have changed and what would it look like today if bartering were the only way of making payments to the present day."

If bartering were the only way of making payments today, the world would look drastically different. Transactions would have to be negotiated between two people, and the value of goods and services would be determined by the parties involved. Money would not exist, and so there would be no central banking system or standardized currency. This would make it difficult to accurately and fairly measure the value of goods and services.

In addition, the limitations of bartering would mean that long-distance trade would be almost impossible. Without a standardized system of value, it would be difficult to agree on a fair exchange of goods or services. This would limit the ability of people to trade and exchange goods and services with people from other countries.

Bartering would also limit the growth of businesses. Without money, businesses would have to rely on bartering for their goods and services. This would make it difficult for businesses to expand or invest in new projects, as they would have to rely on bartering for their resources.

Finally, without money, the unequal power dynamics between different classes could become even more entrenched. Without a standardized system of payment, those with greater resources would have access to more goods and services than those with less. This would likely lead to a greater divide between the rich and the poor.

prompter: so you would be growing your food to be stolen by the next biggest guy on your block.

assistant: We would have never progressed economically beyond the ancient era.

prompter: Provide a more detailed response.

assistant: Money has played a central role in the development of human societies. It acts to solve the main problem with bartering: that the person that has the thing that you want doesn't want any of the things that you would be willing to give them in return. For example, a fisherman may have had a lot of fish that he wants to trade for a pair of boots but the person making the boots doesn't want any fish. This is where money comes in: money is something that both parties want as a store of value that they will then be able to exchange for something that they actually want at a later point in time. To get back to the example: the person that made the boots may not want any fish but with money they may be able to instead buy an axe. To be useful at its purpose money needs to have the following properties:

* Fungibility: Each unit of money must be able to be used in the same way as another unit. With this property humans need to only care about the amount of money rather than its quality.
* Durability: Money must not (easily) break while it's in circulation, either due to handling or because of decay.
* Divisibility: To enable the purchases of low-value items must be able to be divided into small units.
* Portability: Money must be easy to carry around or else it would be very difficult to transfer it from person to person or to carry enough for a high-value item.
* Acceptable: Most people must accept the money as payment or you wouldn't be able to buy anything with it. The money must be either valuable in and of itself or its value must be guaranteed in some other way, for example by a government.
* Scarce: The supply of money must be limited or else it would quickly deteriorate in value, leading to inflation.

Historically coins made from precious metals such as silver have been used as money. Eventually human societies switched to representations of those metals in the form of paper money (look up gold standard for more information). Nowadays most currencies are not backed by anything except the governments that issue them (fiat currency). When said governments lose power, so does the currency. For example, after Germany lost the Second World War the Reichsmark quickly decreased in value. Instead people in the occupied territories started to use cigarettes as money.

Now to get back to the original question: what would have happened if barter had remained the only way of payment? The answer is that the division of labor present in advanced human societies would have been impossible. The more specialized a human is the more things do they need from other humans to survive and the more other humans do they need to provide their goods or services to. A farmer that is mostly self-sufficient and only occasionally needs some new tools may have been able to get by with bartering but it would be basically impossible for a software developer to trade some of his labor for a morning coffee. So in conclusion, with just bartering human societies would have remained very small with only a small degree of specialization - but with the sheer utility that money provides it seems almost inevitable for human societies to develop it.

prompter: So, now knowing that the barter economy is rather counter to improvement as a whole - what then, would society likely look like now, if there was a universally accepted currency, with an unchanging value, discovered sometime around 1900?

assistant: If barter were the only way of payment in our society, we would likely see a lot more bartering exchanges and much less formalized currency. The world would likely be much more focused on trade and exchange and less focused on monetary transactions. This could have a major impact on our global economy, which is currently driven by debt and credit based economies. Of course, we will never know for sure how the world would look like today if barter was the only way of payment. But it would certainly lead to a different and less capitalistic world we're in today.

assistant: If barter had remained the only form of payment up until the present day, the world would be vastly different from what it is today. The lack of a standardized medium of exchange would make economic transactions much more complicated and less efficient. People would need to find individuals who have the exact goods or services they want and who also want the exact goods or services that they have to offer. This type of direct exchange is called barter, and it was the earliest form of payment.

In such a world, money would not exist as we know it today. Instead, people would have to resort to bartering goods and services with each other. This would make trade more difficult, as people would need to find someone who has what they want and wants what they have. This could lead to a lack of specialization, as people would have to produce all the goods and services they need, rather than just producing what they are good at and trading with others for the rest.

The lack of money would also make it difficult to store wealth, making it difficult for people to accumulate assets over time. This would in turn make it difficult for people to invest in things like education, training, or new business ventures, which would hold back economic progress.

Furthermore, the absence of money would also make it difficult for governments to tax their citizens, making it challenging to fund public goods and services such as roads, schools, and hospitals. In turn, this would impact the overall quality of life and standard of living for people.

Overall, if barter remained the only form of payment, the world would look vastly different than it does today. The complexity of barter would have greatly slowed the development of trade and commerce, leading to a much less advanced and less prosperous world.

prompter: I can see that. Given barter was a primitive way of trading, I can see how the complexity of financial decission would be decrease up to a point of just interchanging assets