It has more to do with the nature of the value. Without an exchange commodity somethings value can only really be determined by its value to you. In the example, if someone wants to buy your land for turnips, but you don't want the turnips, then they have no effective value, even if they would have a monetary one. A medium of exchange means that a thing has an absolute value even if it's worthless to you, so the problem the video is discussing is shifting our perceptions from "this is of value to me or someone I know" to "this is worth money."MoltenSilver said:I think either I'm missing something, or the video made a leap in logic I don't agree with. Even without the existence of physical currency 'money' still exists as a concept in the form of value. Whether I'm bartering for something with symbolic paper or turnips or verbal promises(honor/reputation) or endorsement or art or slaves(I'm gonna take a wild guess here and bet that slavery, ie. putting a price tag on human life, existed thousands of years before currency) I'm still perceiving the exchange through the lens of value, and thus I don't see how it can be argued the invention of currency is what caused the dehumanizing effects brought up in the video