[the_mitsuhiko]

> Barter has been in use since at least 12000BC

The concept of debt predates the concept of barter a long time. Barter requires judging things of equal value. Debt however is easy to understand for humans regardless of ability to have the concept of possession (help me today and i help you tomorrow). I see no reason to believe that money or barter would become before debt in human development.

[droffel]

I fully agree with you about debt/credit. If I give you something without getting anything in return, that can be considered debt.

The point I'm specifically trying to come to grips with is the idea that money came before barter: considering that money is used as a token that is itself bartered for goods or services, I can't understand how money came before barter. It just doesn't make sense, using money is barter.

[the_mitsuhiko]

> The point I'm specifically trying to come to grips with is the idea that money came before barter

I had this discussion a few years ago and one thing that I found interesting as a thought is that barter is not something people like to do. It's generally only used if a token cannot be used because for instance the token is not stable in value. So in times of crisis people would fall back to barter as an alternative but when a stable token of exchange exists, barter does not play a role.

The first thing that develops in a new community is debt and credit but with regards to if money or barter came first there does not seem to be a lot of agreement. I personally feel that barter is quite an unnatural concept because one party will most likely always lose. I cannot imagine that it would come naturally because it's a step back from debt and credit. The only thing it would give you is the ability to trade with someone you don't trust. And that is probably when you tribe meets another tribe which I feel is something that would happen after establishing a local currency.

[groceries]

To me it seems more natural to assume that money would emerge from barter. Barter is only fair to a certain extent. As you (OP) mentioned, in bartering one party will "most likely always lose" while that isn't necessarily always true in pure black and white thinking eventually a barter system would become difficult to maintain in an economy (early or late). Now that would assume that one good or service in the exchange has more worth than the other end of the barter.

I see barter as an early, rugged form of money. Many early civilizations would trade goods such as cows or other animals in exchange for services or other goods. Technically those cows or whatever else WERE a currency. You could give someone 3 cows to help you do X, Y, Z. Replace cow with 300 gold coins and there isn't an enormous difference because each only has as much value as you allow it.

Eventually through barter you'd realize maybe you don't want to give all your cows away or perhaps people begin to realize that sure maybe now they have 3 cows since they did X, Y, Z for you but now the person they need stuff from doesn't need cows because they have 100 cows. Naturally I think currency (coin, paper money... etc) would develop from this to form a more "universal" token for barter so that it could then be more easily used by whoever receives it.

[sdenton4]

Read graeber. He this fallacious just so story quite thoroughly. in the old times happens pretty much only between tribes, in tense circumstances, not within them. Within a tribe, purposely ambiguous debt systems tend to be used. Also, there's a strong argument that money derives from ceremonial goods used to track the exchange of human lives, in marriage, murder, our slavery.

[holdenweb]

You misunderstand the concept of barter. It was actually an informal, unrecorded socially-based debt system. Read "Debt, the first 5,000 Years" for a good explanation.

[1cyril]

Try asking what came first, law or private property (the answer is private property): the implications of that realization are far more important compared to asking whether or not barter existed before money (it did). Also, you can frame it so that debt is conceived of as a type of barter; ie - i barter a debt of equivalent value I herewith owe you in exchange for this item you're offering to give to me as a consequence of that promise.

[lmm]

> Also, you can frame it so that debt is conceived of as a type of barter; ie - i barter a debt of equivalent value I herewith owe you in exchange for this item you're offering to give to me as a consequence of that promise.

The point is that "I'll give you this cow and you'll owe me one" predates "I'll give you this cow and you'll give me those chickens". To the extent that debt is a special type of barter, so is money; I think the distinction between exchanging something for a thing and exchanging something for a debt is worth making.