New York Fed: In ancient Rome, Silver was "Money"

Hat tip Clonal via a post at The New Arthurian.

Let's take a look at the logical consistency within an article published at the New York Fed that makes the typical conflation between metals and "money" in an article supportive of banking relationships that allegedly existed in ancient Rome.  Probably self-serving and revealing:

What if you had to transfer money to somebody in a different part of the globe? As the Roman dominions expanded into Greece, Spain, North Africa, and Asia, Roman finance actually faced this logistical problem. If you’re in Rome and want to, say, finance Caius’ mines in Thapsus, North Africa, how do you get him the money? He needs the silver to buy material, slaves, and other things, but you’re naturally very reluctant to see your money sail away for Africa, as the chances of it getting there aren’t that high (see pirates, shipwrecks, etc.). “Permutatio, the transfer of funds from place to place through paper transactions, was Rome’s great contribution to ancient banking” (Barlow, p. 168). It worked as follows: The publicani were private companies in charge of tax collection in the provinces (as well as many other tasks; see “Publicani,” by U. Malmendier). They had a branch in Rome and one in Thapsus. So, you’d give them the silver in Rome (or transfer them some nomina) and they’d divert some of their tax collection in North Africa to Caius. This is also how the Republic would finance its public spending overseas. Since taxes were collected throughout the provinces, by trading claims on taxes Romans could transfer funds across the globe–or at least to the part of the globe they had conquered.

So these two authors conflate "silver" with "money" in a very typical contemporary fashion that misses the distinction between "money" based on nature and "money" based on law.  To these two FRBNY authors, in a sophomoric way, which has become typical, "it's all the same thing...".

It is not all the same thing at all.

They also of course imply that in ancient Rome, taxes were required to facilitate public spending, this is in no way supported by this contemporaneous account.  To these authors, government has no absolute fiscal authority.

Roman state currency was termed "nomisma" in the Greek and silver was termed "argurion" in the Greek which we know from other contemporaneous accounts.

Ask these two FRBNY authors what a 'free floating, non-convertible currency", ie a currency "driven" by taxes is.  Ask them what this is, I would assume they would not know what you are even talking about.

If you cannot tell the difference between these systems in our present time, you are going to miss this distinction when you are trying to analyze history.

This calls into question their entire analysis here as to whether there was "securitization" in ancient Rome as they do not even apparently understand how monetary systems operate, past or present.

Notice how there is no mention of interest in any of the historic accounts that these authors cite.

These "nomina" that they identify just seem like interest free accounts receivable rather than "bank checks", the individuals just signed for product as a promise to pay later or perhaps alternatively return the item:

But when she has her purchase in her eye,

She hugs thee close, and kisses thee to buy;

“Tis what I want, and ‘tis a pen’orth too;

In many years I will not trouble you.”

If you complain you have no ready coin,

No matter, ‘tis but writing of a line;

A little bill, not to be paid at sight:

(Now curse the time when thou wert taught to write.)

So the guy would just have to return sometime and pay later... so what?

This means that the Romans had a sophisticated banking system with "securitization?

C'mon.... I'm not convinced.