4 ms·
Not sure whether the expansion of this 'psychological debt model' is desirable. Because it's impossible to quantify such debts without money, it becomes more di
by timwaagh 7y ago
Not sure whether the expansion of this 'psychological debt model' is desirable. Because it's impossible to quantify such debts without money, it becomes more difficult to optimize allocation. Maybe the people in the woods haven't found water during many days. Suppose I have some water. More than I'd need for now, but not enough to last for years. I would not be inclined to give any to them. Sure, the woods people might make me a meal or sing for me which is nice, but my water supply is ultimately a guarantee for my long term survival. But if they did have even the concept of money, they might offer a high price, a price that allows me to say 'hey, with these resources i could build a house/attract a partner/drive away in a lambo and that's more useful to me than one month out of my seven months of water'. The antropologies make a compelling case for a different precursor to money and these gift economies are very similar to a money based economy. But money does offer the additional benefit of value quantification and security of deposits.
- NohatCoder 7y agoIf the woods people have been without water for days, and you deny them water, they are probably going to kill you and take your water. Remember, your first priority when encountering other humans is to survive, sometimes the right gift may save your life.
- timwaagh 7y agoI wasn't very specific about the situation. You are right in the sense that trade makes sense only among equals, the rest would just be forced to give up their possesions. So we have to assume this isn't possible. We can assume I am standing on a cliff they can't easily reach. Or perhaps I have a few muscular non-thirsty buddies with me.
- NohatCoder 7y agoEven if you are equal in strength, they may choose to fight you out of desperation, giving up some water is probably still preferable to the risk of a fight.
- Double_a_92 7y agoI suppose the value exchange didn't have to be exactly balanced. It probably was more like perpetually exchanging favours. You would automatically try to repay the favour in an appropriate way, because you wanted the relationship to continue.
- hnick 7y agoYes it's a bit like buying rounds or dinner when you go out with friends. You don't have to keep an exact tally but you all usually know if someone is skimping or only offers to pay at the cheaper venues (and this might be OK among friends if we are all in different financial situations which is an important part of a favour economy).