4 ms·

>> Before we reliably had money, we had barter As far as i know there’s no evidence for this. No historical economy which worked primarily on barter has been d

>> Before we reliably had money, we had barter As far as i know there’s no evidence for this. No historical economy which worked primarily on barter has been discovered. As i understand it, Adam Smith suggested this was the case and it’s now given as rote learning in economics but that historians have never found conclusive proof that this is the case. The wiki entry for barter has this: “No ethnographic studies have shown that any present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, and anthropologists have found no evidence that money emerged from barter.”

TeMPOraL 3y ago
On the one hand, the proposition is kind of obvious and self-evident - "I'll trade you ${thing you want} for ${thing I want}" is the next step from "I'll beat you up and take ${thing I want} from you", and then basic money is just doing the trade in two steps. On the other hand, single-step trading - that is, barter - gets infeasible as the primary trading model very quickly. Not because of specialization (the "I want to trade shoes for food, but everyone already has enough shoes" problem), but because of fairness - everyone's memory and the "shared knowledge" established through gossip can scale only so far, and past that point, you need some other means to ensure exchange of goods and services stays balanced over time (and that your group can agree fair balance is being maintained). Basically, either your proto-society develops ways to track balance of trade[0], or it'll grow a freeloader problem, which will keep it down and possibly even destroy the group. That point comes early enough that it's entirely likely the early societies that didn't develop money didn't grow large enough, and didn't survive long enough, to enter historical record. -- [0] - Trading via a medium of exchange - that is, some form of money - is just one way to achieve it, but it has the useful property of being self-balancing, thus not requiring shared global state. That is, you don't have to keep official logs of every trade made by everyone in your group to keep things fair and balanced (or even define, update and defend what "fair" and "balanced" means, which is something everyone has slightly different view of) - you can just establish a common medium of exchange, give people freedom to individually negotiate the exchange rates, and you have a self-balancing system.
- karatinversion 3y ago
  I think the point is that historical societies are full of unbalanced social relationships, or "freeloader problems". Slaves and serfs worked for their masters. Parents provide for infant children, and adult children for elderly parents. Kings and lords receive tribute and service to the extent that they are due, and sometimes demand more. Priests take in offerings and perform rituals - often any barter here is directly with the god ("Poseidon, bring our ship safely to harbour and I will sacrifice an ox for you") rather than the priest.
- unFou 3y ago
  Not sure that there aren't alternate pathways from "I'll take what I want" and "I'll trade you specifically this for that". I remember reading on acoup that in agrarian societies, often they relied on favours and communal sharing in times of bounty. So say if I butchered a hog today, all my neighbours might get some. Not in exchange for something directly, but in the expectation that when I fall on hard times or they get a windfall, they'll do the same for me. There's probably some potential for freeloading here, but these sorts of communities are likely often right on the edge of survival. If someone develops a reputation for being miserly, that might well result in them starving (or freezing) because they're rejected by their neighbours. So there's an incentive to at least appear generous and pay your fair share.
- llamama 3y ago
  I suggest taking a look at the book “Debt: The First 5000 Years” by David Graeber. As parent suggests, this is a popular misconception. It’s a nice story, but its made up. Upon a more thorough historical analysis, evidence suggests that in fact, money came first. Not barter. The author makes some solid arguments to support this.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

On the one hand, the proposition is kind of obvious and self-evident - "I'll trade you ${thing you want} for ${thing I want}" is the next step from "I'll beat you up and take ${thing I want} from you", and then basic money is just doing the trade in two steps. On the other hand, single-step trading - that is, barter - gets infeasible as the primary trading model very quickly. Not because of specialization (the "I want to trade shoes for food, but everyone already has enough shoes" problem), but because of fairness - everyone's memory and the "shared knowledge" established through gossip can scale only so far, and past that point, you need some other means to ensure exchange of goods and services stays balanced over time (and that your group can agree fair balance is being maintained). Basically, either your proto-society develops ways to track balance of trade[0], or it'll grow a freeloader problem, which will keep it down and possibly even destroy the group. That point comes early enough that it's entirely likely the early societies that didn't develop money didn't grow large enough, and didn't survive long enough, to enter historical record. -- [0] - Trading via a medium of exchange - that is, some form of money - is just one way to achieve it, but it has the useful property of being self-balancing, thus not requiring shared global state. That is, you don't have to keep official logs of every trade made by everyone in your group to keep things fair and balanced (or even define, update and defend what "fair" and "balanced" means, which is something everyone has slightly different view of) - you can just establish a common medium of exchange, give people freedom to individually negotiate the exchange rates, and you have a self-balancing system.

karatinversion 3y ago
I think the point is that historical societies are full of unbalanced social relationships, or "freeloader problems". Slaves and serfs worked for their masters. Parents provide for infant children, and adult children for elderly parents. Kings and lords receive tribute and service to the extent that they are due, and sometimes demand more. Priests take in offerings and perform rituals - often any barter here is directly with the god ("Poseidon, bring our ship safely to harbour and I will sacrifice an ox for you") rather than the priest.
unFou 3y ago
Not sure that there aren't alternate pathways from "I'll take what I want" and "I'll trade you specifically this for that". I remember reading on acoup that in agrarian societies, often they relied on favours and communal sharing in times of bounty. So say if I butchered a hog today, all my neighbours might get some. Not in exchange for something directly, but in the expectation that when I fall on hard times or they get a windfall, they'll do the same for me. There's probably some potential for freeloading here, but these sorts of communities are likely often right on the edge of survival. If someone develops a reputation for being miserly, that might well result in them starving (or freezing) because they're rejected by their neighbours. So there's an incentive to at least appear generous and pay your fair share.
llamama 3y ago
I suggest taking a look at the book “Debt: The First 5000 Years” by David Graeber. As parent suggests, this is a popular misconception. It’s a nice story, but its made up. Upon a more thorough historical analysis, evidence suggests that in fact, money came first. Not barter. The author makes some solid arguments to support this.