Automotive Businesses for SaleBars for SaleBanquet Halls for SaleBurger Restaurants for SaleBeauty & Personal Care Businesses for SaleConstruction & Landscaping Businesses for SaleConvenience Stores for SaleCoffee Shops for SaleDine-In Restaurants for SaleDry Cleaning Businesses for SaleFast Food Restaurants for SaleGas Stations for SaleGrocery Stores for SaleHealthcare & Medical Businesses for SaleHotels & Motels for SaleRestaurants for SaleRetirement Homes for SaleSandwich & Sub Shops for SaleSports Bars for SaleVending Businesses for Sale
In his analysis of barter between coastal and inland villages in the Trobriand Islands, Keith Hart highlighted the difference between highly ceremonial gift exchange between community leaders, and the barter that occurs between individual households. The haggling that takes place between strangers is possible because of the larger temporary political order established by the gift exchanges of leaders. From this he concludes that barter is "an atomized interaction predicated upon the presence of society" (i.e. that social order established by gift exchange), and not typical between complete strangers.
“Economic theory has always got to be historically bounded,” Beggs says. “I think it’s a mistake to think you’ll find the workings of modern money by going back to the origins of money.” He does point out that, while barter may not have been widespread, it’s possible that it happened somewhere and led to money, just given how much is unknown about such a large period of time.
On paper, this sounds a bit like delayed barter, but it bears some significant differences. For one thing, it’s much more efficient than Smith’s idea of a barter system, since it doesn’t depend on each person simultaneously having what the other wants. It’s also not tit for tat: No one ever assigns a specific value to the meat or cake or house-building labor, meaning debts can’t be transferred.