Link to the comment I'm using as a punching bag. I'm sure they had good intentions.
This is a bit of /r/badhistory material too, but I figured you guys would like it.
And, as forewarning, my main focuses in school are Political Science and History; I'm only taking a minor in Econ because it contributes to my understanding of those subjects. So, I'm sorry if there are some mistakes here and there.
This comment makes a few points:
"A barter economy is a 'pre-economic' economy"
"valuation does not occur in market terms . . . [because] the value of a good is set, not by the market, but by the individual."
"much of what drives a barter economy is perishables"
wealth does not accumulate in these economies
"[people] are likely to agree to informal currency systems." (that markets spontaneously emerge)
Are barter economies real things?
Kinda. The idea of a barter economy was first imagined by Adam Smith and has since been and embarrassingly untrue truism in the opening chapters of every elementary economics book. As he describes:
As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need of . . . In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. . . In order to avoid the inconveniency of such situations, every prudent man in every period of society, after the first establishment of the division of labour. 1
From here, the idea of the Barter Economy is really a consequence of the desire to create and independent field of study: Economics. He treats the actors as if they can readily separate economic, social, and political life and act independently in each sphere; something that we still can't do today.
Barter does exist though. There is no doubt about it. However, the idea that a widespread use of inefficient barter systems gradually became market systems when people realized how much better the latter are is ahistorical at best. Only in a few cases has anyone found real life examples of "Two chickens for a shovel please."
So, when does barter happen?
When:
people are angry with each other.
people don't know each other.
a market system has collapsed and there are no social structures capable of facilitate the exchange of goods or services.
What happens in the place of barter?
Now we start making careful generalizations about hundreds of thousands of different cultures which we know relatively little about!
Funny enough, Nietzsche was close to it in "On the Genealogy of Morals." He was still wrong, but on a better track than Smith none the less.
What happens instead are often called "gift economies" or "reciprocal economies." To generalize these systems, exchange of goods and services are done within a general construct of debt.
As David Graeber explains:
Henry walks up to Joshua and says, "Nice shoes!"
Or, perhaps—let's make this a bit more realistic—Henry's wife
is chatting with Joshua's and strategically lets slip that the state of
Henry's shoes is getting so bad he's complaining about corns.
The message is conveyed, and Joshua comes by the next day to
offer his extra pair to Henry as a present, insisting that this is just
a neighborly gesture. He would certainly never want anything in
return.
It doesn't matter whether Joshua is sincere in saying this. By doing so, Joshua thereby registers a credit. Henry owes him one.
How might Henry pay Joshua back? There are endless possibilities. Perhaps Joshua really does want potatoes. Henry waits a
discrete interval and drops them off, insisting that this too is just a
gift. Or Joshua doesn't need potatoes now but Henry waits until he
does. Or maybe a year later, Joshua is planning a banquet, so he
comes strolling by Henry's barnyard and says "Nice pig . . ." 2
Is this inefficient? Sure. But efficiency is not the concern. In most of these systems it would be extremely insulting to try and make a perfectly even trade, even more so to try and even out your debts with that person. After all, that is really just saying, "I don't want to have to deal with you again."
This was certainly the case in legal disputes in which justice was literally paying back what was owed (+1 Cephalus). This is seen in Celtic Law codes as they monetized almost every common item and body part despite the fact that there were no markets present at the time. They did this because someone who just got their cow stolen does not want to maintain friendly ties with the thief, occasionally asking for things that will eventually add up to the value of that cow. They want one cow, or something of exactly equivalent value, given back to them immediately.
This is just intra-group trade though. Exchanges between different groups may have been barter-esq. As quoted from Graeber's book:
[Describing inter-group trade as done by the Brazilian Nambikwara peoples]
If an individual wants an object he extols it by saying how fine it is. If a man values an object and wants much in exchange for it, instead of saying that it is very valuable he says that it is no good, thus showing his desire to keep it. "This axe is no good, it is very old, it is very dull," he will say, referring to his axe which the other wants.
This argument is carried on in an angry tone of voice until a settlement is reached. When agreement has been reached each snatches the object out of the other's hand. If a man has bartered a necklace, instead of taking it off and handing it over, the other person must take it off with a show of force. Disputes, often leading to fights, occur when one party is a little premature and snatches the object before the other has finished arguing. 3
So, to directly address the points:
Barter economies are not "pre-economic" economies. In fact, the attempt to shove the idea of a modern economy into the past is, in my opinion, a worse crime than those maps that make ancient civilizations look like nation-states.
Valuation would occur based on supply and demand, just not with the accuracy or efficiency of a market economy. Jeff can't give me a rock and expect to be on roughly even grounds after I help build his barn.
Not really. But it's fun to think about how perishables would be treated in comparison to more durable goods.
It would be possible to accumulate wealth. These systems often interplayed with stratified social structures. The social norms of that society would define what is fair in the end and would end up benefiting those in power.
I don't think there are any definitive answered as to why markets come about. There is no doubt that they tend to only exist alongside states. Greaber argues that creating and taxing markets was necessary for the core functions of the state apparatus.
ここには何もないようです