Hacker News Reader

Comment by afarrell | Hacker News Reader

It is obvious that barter was a possibility. It is not obvious that most economic interaction worked through barter. How often do your interactions with your friends and family involve barter? Mine are more nuanced exchanges like

- "I generally do the dishes and trust that you are keeping on top of sorting our mail"

- "I've got this round of beers. You'll probably get the next one but nobody's counting"

- "Sure, I'll help you move flats"

View on HN

One of the difficulties of separating small-tribe economics from the rest of their social system is that the members of a small tribe don't think of it like that. If you live in that kind of society then you know personally the people you are dealing with, and while you might "trade" items or favours, its all pretty approximate, with the "balances" held in peoples heads, and tied in with other concepts of social obligation such as a general duty to look after the sick and elderly, and watch out for each other's children. It's only once people start living in larger groups where you can't know everyone that something like an economic system develops.

So because you don't barter with your family and friends - while living a top 0.00001% lifestyle compared to most people in history - you conclude bartering wasn't really a big thing in the past and people just gave things away for free most of the time?

I assume no, but I'm not understanding what are you actually arguing for then?

I think you misunderstood his point- in a system without money, you can directly barter (ie I give you an apple for your your orange), or adopt a ‘credit’ based system (ie I give you an apple today, and when I need a favor I’ll ask you for one - like the Godfather, for example).

What the book ‘Debt’ discusses is that credit based systems were the norm, not bartering.

In fact, iirc even bats have been shown to keep track of who shares food with them, and to share excess food with a less lucky partner, provided that partner continues to reciprocate.

Isn't that 'credit system' just one step in transitioning to a monetary system?

It's unlikely that people were battering one day and then suddenly had this great idea of transitioning to a system of using money. Battering > battering with some credit > formalised money system seems like a logical series of steps to me. And of course there would be many more small steps between those. I would expect the number of transactions using credit to track the growth of society and the corresponding range of goods and service available.

Well thats the whole point of the debt book. Taking that progression and poking holes in it. IIRC, Graber suggests that physical money came in too play when kings needed to levy armies.

I know this is a lousy source, but my Latin teacher in High School claimed that Caesar invented fiat currency (although she didn't use those words).

He put is face on gold coin, gave it to soldiers, and demanded that his taxes be paid not in any-old-gold, but in Caesar-face gold. Thereby ensuring that recently conquered villages have an incentive to feed and house the solders that conquered them. This way, those soldiers didn't need to resupply before moving on to the next village.

It would seem that we've been using money to override ethics on behalf of the powerful ever since.

Thank you for explaining.

My assumption is that your lifestyle is similarly detached from antiquity as mine. My only firm conclusion is that it is non-obvious, either of us would need more evidence, and that it was worth David Graeber's time to research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com