[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.