4 ms·

That's so obvious it doesn't require evidence. Of course there was bartering before there was money, you don't need to money to barter, you need to invent money

That's so obvious it doesn't require evidence. Of course there was bartering before there was money, you don't need to money to barter, you need to invent money to use money.

afarrell 5y ago
It is obvious that barter was a possibility. It is not obvious that most economic interaction worked through barter. How often do your interactions with your friends and family involve barter? Mine are more nuanced exchanges like - "I generally do the dishes and trust that you are keeping on top of sorting our mail" - "I've got this round of beers. You'll probably get the next one but nobody's counting" - "Sure, I'll help you move flats"
- Nimitz14 5y ago
  So because you don't barter with your family and friends - while living a top 0.00001% lifestyle compared to most people in history - you conclude bartering wasn't really a big thing in the past and people just gave things away for free most of the time? I assume no, but I'm not understanding what are you actually arguing for then?
  - afarrell 5y ago
    My assumption is that your lifestyle is similarly detached from antiquity as mine. My only firm conclusion is that it is non-obvious, either of us would need more evidence, and that it was worth David Graeber's time to research.
  - achenet 5y ago
    I think you misunderstood his point- in a system without money, you can directly barter (ie I give you an apple for your your orange), or adopt a ‘credit’ based system (ie I give you an apple today, and when I need a favor I’ll ask you for one - like the Godfather, for example). What the book ‘Debt’ discusses is that credit based systems were the norm, not bartering. In fact, iirc even bats have been shown to keep track of who shares food with them, and to share excess food with a less lucky partner, provided that partner continues to reciprocate.
    - Nimitz14 5y ago
      Thank you for explaining.
    - postingawayonhn 5y ago
      Isn't that 'credit system' just one step in transitioning to a monetary system? It's unlikely that people were battering one day and then suddenly had this great idea of transitioning to a system of using money. Battering > battering with some credit > formalised money system seems like a logical series of steps to me. And of course there would be many more small steps between those. I would expect the number of transactions using credit to track the growth of society and the corresponding range of goods and service available.
      - alexilliamson 5y ago
        Well thats the whole point of the debt book. Taking that progression and poking holes in it. IIRC, Graber suggests that physical money came in too play when kings needed to levy armies.
        __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
        I know this is a lousy source, but my Latin teacher in High School claimed that Caesar invented fiat currency (although she didn't use those words). He put is face on gold coin, gave it to soldiers, and demanded that his taxes be paid not in any-old-gold, but in Caesar-face gold. Thereby ensuring that recently conquered villages have an incentive to feed and house the solders that conquered them. This way, those soldiers didn't need to resupply before moving on to the next village. It would seem that we've been using money to override ethics on behalf of the powerful ever since.
- PaulAJ 5y ago
  One of the difficulties of separating small-tribe economics from the rest of their social system is that the members of a small tribe don't think of it like that. If you live in that kind of society then you know personally the people you are dealing with, and while you might "trade" items or favours, its all pretty approximate, with the "balances" held in peoples heads, and tied in with other concepts of social obligation such as a general duty to look after the sick and elderly, and watch out for each other's children. It's only once people start living in larger groups where you can't know everyone that something like an economic system develops.
rjknight 5y ago
Yes, incidents of barter will pre-date incidents of spending money. That part is obvious. But this does not imply that there was a widespread "barter system" as the primary means of trade and cooperation, which was then replaced by a superior "money system". Instead, there would have been systems of credit, where you give me chickens now and I give you apples in six months. No money changes hands, but it's possible to keep track of who deserves to have some apples, and complex social institutions can be constructed on this basis, that would never be possible if society relied entirely on a "barter system". The "money system" is not an alternative to a "barter system" but is an alternative to a "credit system". Societies have gone back and forth between them many times throughout history - arguably we switched from a money system to a credit system when we abandoned the gold standard, and Bitcoin advocates want us to switch back again.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  > Instead, there would have been systems of credit, where you give me chickens now and I give you apples in six months. No money changes hands, but it's possible to keep track of who deserves to have some apples. That is called "barter". Unless all the transfers/debts/values are being tracked in terms of apple's, then apples are fulfilling at least one aspect of money: unit of account.
  - rjknight 5y ago
    > That is called "barter". From the Wikiepdia page on "Barter"[1]: > In trade, barter (derived from baretor) is a system of exchange in which participants in a transaction directly exchange goods or services for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money. Economists distinguish barter from gift economies in many ways; barter, for example, features immediate reciprocal exchange, not one delayed in time. The "immediate reciprocal exchange" criterion means that exchanging chickens now for apples later is not barter. When we talk about money replacing barter, we are talking specifically about the ability to immediately exchange physical tokens for goods or services. This refers very specifically to money as the medium of exchange, not as the medium of account. In the traditional story, money was needed because Farmer A wants to exchange chickens for apples with Farmer B, but Farmer B doesn't have any apples right now. Money is useful because they can exchange that instead. But this story loses a lot of its force when you understand that they could have simply exchanged credit, without any need for money at all. The systemic change is not barter -> money, but credit -> money, which has very different implications for how society is organised. And, as I mentioned, we can see transitions from credit -> money and back again occur many times in history, whereas we see barter occur only in extremely rare circumstances. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter

That's so obvious it doesn't require evidence. Of course there was bartering before there was money, you don't need to money to barter, you need to invent money to use money.

afarrell 5y ago

It is obvious that barter was a possibility. It is not obvious that most economic interaction worked through barter. How often do your interactions with your friends and family involve barter? Mine are more nuanced exchanges like - "I generally do the dishes and trust that you are keeping on top of sorting our mail" - "I've got this round of beers. You'll probably get the next one but nobody's counting" - "Sure, I'll help you move flats"

Nimitz14 5y ago
So because you don't barter with your family and friends - while living a top 0.00001% lifestyle compared to most people in history - you conclude bartering wasn't really a big thing in the past and people just gave things away for free most of the time? I assume no, but I'm not understanding what are you actually arguing for then?
- afarrell 5y ago
  My assumption is that your lifestyle is similarly detached from antiquity as mine. My only firm conclusion is that it is non-obvious, either of us would need more evidence, and that it was worth David Graeber's time to research.
- achenet 5y ago
  I think you misunderstood his point- in a system without money, you can directly barter (ie I give you an apple for your your orange), or adopt a ‘credit’ based system (ie I give you an apple today, and when I need a favor I’ll ask you for one - like the Godfather, for example). What the book ‘Debt’ discusses is that credit based systems were the norm, not bartering. In fact, iirc even bats have been shown to keep track of who shares food with them, and to share excess food with a less lucky partner, provided that partner continues to reciprocate.
  - Nimitz14 5y ago
    Thank you for explaining.
  - postingawayonhn 5y ago
    Isn't that 'credit system' just one step in transitioning to a monetary system? It's unlikely that people were battering one day and then suddenly had this great idea of transitioning to a system of using money. Battering > battering with some credit > formalised money system seems like a logical series of steps to me. And of course there would be many more small steps between those. I would expect the number of transactions using credit to track the growth of society and the corresponding range of goods and service available.
    - alexilliamson 5y ago
      Well thats the whole point of the debt book. Taking that progression and poking holes in it. IIRC, Graber suggests that physical money came in too play when kings needed to levy armies.
      - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
        I know this is a lousy source, but my Latin teacher in High School claimed that Caesar invented fiat currency (although she didn't use those words). He put is face on gold coin, gave it to soldiers, and demanded that his taxes be paid not in any-old-gold, but in Caesar-face gold. Thereby ensuring that recently conquered villages have an incentive to feed and house the solders that conquered them. This way, those soldiers didn't need to resupply before moving on to the next village. It would seem that we've been using money to override ethics on behalf of the powerful ever since.
PaulAJ 5y ago
One of the difficulties of separating small-tribe economics from the rest of their social system is that the members of a small tribe don't think of it like that. If you live in that kind of society then you know personally the people you are dealing with, and while you might "trade" items or favours, its all pretty approximate, with the "balances" held in peoples heads, and tied in with other concepts of social obligation such as a general duty to look after the sick and elderly, and watch out for each other's children. It's only once people start living in larger groups where you can't know everyone that something like an economic system develops.

rjknight 5y ago

Yes, incidents of barter will pre-date incidents of spending money. That part is obvious. But this does not imply that there was a widespread "barter system" as the primary means of trade and cooperation, which was then replaced by a superior "money system". Instead, there would have been systems of credit, where you give me chickens now and I give you apples in six months. No money changes hands, but it's possible to keep track of who deserves to have some apples, and complex social institutions can be constructed on this basis, that would never be possible if society relied entirely on a "barter system". The "money system" is not an alternative to a "barter system" but is an alternative to a "credit system". Societies have gone back and forth between them many times throughout history - arguably we switched from a money system to a credit system when we abandoned the gold standard, and Bitcoin advocates want us to switch back again.

Nevermark 5y ago
> Instead, there would have been systems of credit, where you give me chickens now and I give you apples in six months. No money changes hands, but it's possible to keep track of who deserves to have some apples. That is called "barter". Unless all the transfers/debts/values are being tracked in terms of apple's, then apples are fulfilling at least one aspect of money: unit of account.
- rjknight 5y ago
  > That is called "barter". From the Wikiepdia page on "Barter"[1]: > In trade, barter (derived from baretor) is a system of exchange in which participants in a transaction directly exchange goods or services for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money. Economists distinguish barter from gift economies in many ways; barter, for example, features immediate reciprocal exchange, not one delayed in time. The "immediate reciprocal exchange" criterion means that exchanging chickens now for apples later is not barter. When we talk about money replacing barter, we are talking specifically about the ability to immediately exchange physical tokens for goods or services. This refers very specifically to money as the medium of exchange, not as the medium of account. In the traditional story, money was needed because Farmer A wants to exchange chickens for apples with Farmer B, but Farmer B doesn't have any apples right now. Money is useful because they can exchange that instead. But this story loses a lot of its force when you understand that they could have simply exchanged credit, without any need for money at all. The systemic change is not barter -> money, but credit -> money, which has very different implications for how society is organised. And, as I mentioned, we can see transitions from credit -> money and back again occur many times in history, whereas we see barter occur only in extremely rare circumstances. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter