[codingmess]

"On paper, this sounds a bit like delayed barter, but it bears some significant differences."

Yeah sorry, but it is a barter economy. They only frame it differently to get their papers published.

Yes, it may work not exactly like described in the economics textbooks (and gift economies have some interesting specific properties). But I am really tired of people claiming everything in economics textbooks is to be taken absolutely literal, and if the real world is not like that, then classical economics has been refuted.

Of course they use idealized models in the textbooks, including the rational actor. The economists are well aware that they are using simplified models.

[nabnob]

That's not the same thing as bartering at all.

When you do a favor for a friend (like giving a referral for a job), do you see it as a transaction where you expect them to pay you back at some point?

[Zyst]

>When you do a favor for a friend (like giving a referral for a job), do you see it as a transaction where you expect them to pay you back at some point?

To some limited degree.

If you were later in your life in need of a job, and your friend could refer you to their new company, but they refuse to because of arbitrary reasons.

Would you not think they are being a poor friend? Even more so because you did a very similar favor for them in the past?

[tsimionescu]

Possibly, but some expectation of reciprocity does not equal debt and an 'internal ledger'. That some aspects of some human interactions can be modelled by a transaction model doesn't mean that they are inherently transactional. We may well find that there are important differences and that the actual internal human model is different.

Even your example only really works because you have constructed it in a specific way. Of course if your friend could do you a small favor that helps you greatly, and that you have performed for them in the past, you would expect that they owe it to you, as if you had a mental ledger. However, if the situation is slightly different, say, their father is ill and they are caring for them in hospital, would you still expect them to call their office to recommend you? If they were out of a job at the moment as well, but happened to have some extra money, would you expect them to provide you a loan so you could fund a start-up instead of getting a job?

I don't believe human relationships and gift economies reduce to a kind of barter. There are barter-like aspects to it, but I think they stem from different internal impulses. I may well be wrong, but I don't think we can assume they are not simply because some mutual exchange is taking place.

[codingmess]

Again, economic theories don't need to be taken literal, they are simplified models. Just because somebody helps somebody else in need without immediately expecting a carrot in return, doesn't mean bartering is refuted.

Even in our today's world with money, people help other people in need. I don't think it defies economic reason, either. It is "pay it forward" or a kind of social insurance, as people can expect the same being done for them. Also perhaps it is simply a different kind of interaction, who says EVERYTHING has to be modeled as a trade? Or maybe it is the price for belonging to society, or to a certain circle of people, who would shun you if you would display antisocial behavior. Not every exchange good has to be a carrot.

Maybe the insurance model explains it quite well, now that I think about it.

Rational actors also work out in the long run, because by evolution the more rational strategy prevails. So people may not be aware why they help others (they don't do a calculation in their head every time), but it can still be the rational thing to do.

[rvense]

I think it's a significant distinction.

This idealized barter economy contains a the same rather specific notion of value (as something countable, comparable, fungible, etc.) that is like the idea of value that a monetary system rests on. The article suggests that historical evidence fits better with the idea that money actually precedes that notion, rather than the other way around. This should impact the way barter economies are analysed and compared to monetary systems.

[codingmess]

I'm sure in the average gift economy, people had a sense of value, and whether they were getting screwed over, too.

Graeber is an interesting guy, but he is also a Socialist with an agenda.

[rvense]

I'm sorry, but it seems like you also have, if not an agenda, then at least some preconceptions you don't want to adjust. "I'm sure of X" really isn't much of an argument.

I remember a story of a linguist (Dan Everett, probably) working in the Amazon. He tried to convince a speaker of the language he was studying to sit with him for a few hours to help him with his grammar. He offered some fishhooks in return. The guy asked, "do you fish?", to which he replied no, and then the guy looked puzzled and said "then why don't you just give me the fishhooks?"

[codingmess]

Anecdotal evidence :-)

There are all sorts of societies, or were, throughout history. I remember reading about one where they didn't have the concept of ownership of things. But it was very logical for their environment, where most things would only have been a hindrance. In such a society, for example, maybe people would be wondering why somebody would want to hold on to fish hooks.

So sorry, some anecdotes don't cut it.

Me having an agenda: I have an opinion, obviously. Feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt. My whole point was that you should also take what Graeber says with a grain of salt.

[devcpp]

That's exactly my problem with him, he is always in salesman mode. He has the conclusion figured out and works backwards to find the arguments he wants to see.

[learnstats2]

I think there is a problem with teaching people a theory which is wrong.

If currency vanished overnight, most people would not be producing enough material things to survive a barter economy.

So life-by-barter doesn't ever make sense: it only makes sense if you are used to the idea of exchanging your value for currency.

[codingmess]

You don't need to barter 1:1 every time. Of course you can track of what people owe you, roughly.

Maybe specific bartering gets more important with bigger societies, when it is not possible to keep track in one's brain anymore.

[learnstats2]

I think it's a stretch to call this barter, and I don't think this is even what (most) people do in the absence of currency.

People do things for people they are unlikely to see ever again, just because it's a nice thing to do.

You can't squeeze that into the definition of barter, at all.

[codingmess]

Just because people barter or keep scores, it doesn't mean they can't do other things, like be nice or give gifts occasionally.

Honestly, to cut the discussion short: do you have kids? I have two kids. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but they are really not all that naturally generous and giving to each other. Must be the toxic capitalist environment they grew up in? How can I activate their socialist genes and make them want to share all their toys with each other?