In what situations is a barter economy better than a monetary economy?

[odolvlobo]

The barter economy is better when there is no greedy and bad people. They will take the advantage of this situation by scamming their 'buyer' with the stuff that have lower value than the stuff from the 'buyer'. It sounds impossible to be realized, and thats why the barter economy isnt suitable for the world nowadays.

That's crazy. There is no situation where a barter economy is better. Even if there were some global disaster and the entire world reverted back to subsistence farming, money would be a major benefit.

Sorry professor, but I think you should quoted my whole comment 

Sorry. You are right. I should have read the whole comment. I didn't read past the first part.

[1713906862]

1713906862

[1713906862]

1713906862

[1713906862]

1713906862

[1713906862]

1713906862

[Falconer]

That's a stupid thing to say. The only reason he did not quote your full comment was because it was as irrelevant as your existence. As far as knowledge goes, you won't even get a job at Mcdonalds. Barter system was the most terrible way people handled transactions. 'The barter economy is better when you get stuff with higher value than what you give', you say. There are two parties involved in barter system, making the deal for the other person always bad as he will not be able to get stuff of equal value. That means half of the world will not get things/services at the value they deserve. Wow, terrible concept bro.

Hey, I just explained the example of when the barter economy is better. Let me explain you another example
You have much water in your house, and your neighbor feel very thirsty and want to get your water. Then he offer you his gold for you to barter it with your water, and you accept it. In your mind, gold has higher value than water. But, in his mind, he need the water more than gold. So it will be win-win situation right? Feel free to refute my opinion.


P.S.  I should quote the main point from my previous comment here

It sounds impossible to be realized, and thats why the barter economy isnt suitable for the world nowadays.

[Miracal]

That's a stupid thing to say. The only reason he did not quote your full comment was because it was as irrelevant as your existence. As far as knowledge goes, you won't even get a job at Mcdonalds. Barter system was the most terrible way people handled transactions. 'The barter economy is better when you get stuff with higher value than what you give', you say. There are two parties involved in barter system, making the deal for the other person always bad as he will not be able to get stuff of equal value. That means half of the world will not get things/services at the value they deserve. Wow, terrible concept bro.

Hey, I just explained the example of when the barter economy is better. Let me explain you another example
You have much water in your house, and your neighbor feel very thirsty and want to get your water. Then he offer you his gold for you to barter it with your water, and you accept it. In your mind, gold has higher value than water. But, in his mind, he need the water more than gold. So it will be win-win situation right? Feel free to refute my opinion.

Why would I exchange it with gold because gold is worthless to me, as I would like television to watch movies at home rather than having gold. What will I do of a shiny object? You have failed in every aspect of giving an example because you were giving me an example of barter system but then you involved gold which made it an example of exchanging gold which was started when Kings started ruling, and then came money.

[Falconer]

Why would I exchange it with gold because gold is worthless to me, as I would like television to watch movies at home rather than having gold. What will I do of a shiny object? You have failed in every aspect of giving an example because you were giving me an example of barter system but then you involved gold which made it an example of exchanging gold which was started when Kings started ruling, and then came money.

Yeah you can barter it with anything you want, Miracal. You can take the book, telly, bag, bike, car, even smartphone. I once heard that we could be smart with a smartphone in our hand. It sounds very suitable for you. And, do you know that the main purpose of gold is to make jewelry, not as exchanging tools?

[funkenstein]

In what situations is a barter economy better than a monetary economy?

In all situations with no exception, a barter transaction is more direct and better to all involved parties.  Unfortunately it's often slower and more involved and the lazy option is to use a monetary token and accept the loss in efficiency.   

[herzmeister]

for the umpteenth time, the ancient barter economy is a myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSnReXI4gKk

[odolvlobo]

In what situations is a barter economy better than a monetary economy?

In all situations with no exception, a barter transaction is more direct and better to all involved parties.  Unfortunately it's often slower and more involved and the lazy option is to use a monetary token and accept the loss in efficiency.   

Keep in mind that the question is about a barter economy and not a barter transaction. A barter economy is one in which there is no money.

If you have a job in a barter economy, you are going to be paid in chickens or cabbages or coal, or whatever. You will have to pay your phone bill with chickens or cabbages or coal, or whatever, though I don't believe a barter economy could even support a phone system.

[Erdogan]

In what situations is a barter economy better than a monetary economy?

In all situations with no exception, a barter transaction is more direct and better to all involved parties.  Unfortunately it's often slower and more involved and the lazy option is to use a monetary token and accept the loss in efficiency.   

Keep in mind that the question is about a barter economy and not a barter transaction. A barter economy is one in which there is no money.

If you have a job in a barter economy, you are going to be paid in chickens or cabbages or coal, or whatever. You will have to pay your phone bill with chickens or cabbages or coal, or whatever, though I don't believe a barter economy could even support a phone system.

Yes. When there is no money, consumable stuff will have to be your means of payment. Envision hauling a sack of potatoes downtown to pay for a haircut. Some preferred good will develop into money.

Money can disappear in hyperinflation. It happens all the time somewhere in the world. See

http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/world-hyperinflations

Until a new money system can be established, or foreign money can be imported, it will have to be barter. It can happen in a localized area also in a war zone, the money can, locally, be of no value because food and medicines will be valuable, and noone can afford to take money in exchange.

[funkenstein]

In what situations is a barter economy better than a monetary economy?

In all situations with no exception, a barter transaction is more direct and better to all involved parties.  Unfortunately it's often slower and more involved and the lazy option is to use a monetary token and accept the loss in efficiency.  

Keep in mind that the question is about a barter economy and not a barter transaction. A barter economy is one in which there is no money.

If you have a job in a barter economy, you are going to be paid in chickens or cabbages or coal, or whatever. You will have to pay your phone bill with chickens or cabbages or coal, or whatever, though I don't believe a barter economy could even support a phone system.

Well you haven't thought about it very hard then.  Whether you call a particular commodity "money" is up to you.  Typically we refer to those commodities we are most likely to part with as "monies", as defined by Gresham's law.  Now can you tell us please how whether you like to call your tradeable commodities "money" or not has any influence on a phone system.  

[greBit]

Why would I exchange it with gold because gold is worthless to me, as I would like television to watch movies at home rather than having gold. What will I do of a shiny object? You have failed in every aspect of giving an example because you were giving me an example of barter system but then you involved gold which made it an example of exchanging gold which was started when Kings started ruling, and then came money.

Yeah you can barter it with anything you want, Miracal. You can take the book, telly, bag, bike, car, even smartphone. I once heard that we could be smart with a smartphone in our hand. It sounds very suitable for you. And, do you know that the main purpose of gold is to make jewelry, not as exchanging tools?

And what will they give as salary to the people who made the smartphone? The whole point of having a currency was that every note had a value to it. The number of coins or notes we give, according to the services and products we chose in exchange of providing its value. There is no way barter is better because things couldn't be divided. The main purpose of Gold is not to make jewelry, that became a secondary purpose later. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

[ObscureBean]

Well it depends how deep you wanna go, on the surface scope is obvious difference. The core give and take principle, however, remains exactly the same in both. To answer op's question, there is no situation where one would be better than the other although the illusion of exactly that would be hard to dismiss. Changing from a monetary economy to a barter economy, the shortcomings just get more intimate and that is it.

[HarHarHar9965]

Well it depends how deep you wanna go, on the surface scope is obvious difference. The core give and take principle, however, remains exactly the same in both. To answer op's question, there is no situation where one would be better than the other although the illusion of exactly that would be hard to dismiss. Changing from a monetary economy to a barter economy, the shortcomings just get more intimate and that is it.

Yes, understandable that fiat might have not been the perfect currency, making us rethink our options but that option is certainly not barter system. Barter system by far has been awarded the most biggest failure of transactions but the one system used for years and years. As people evolved and used more of their stupid brain, they realized how lame barter is. going back to barter would be dumb downing of our society, especially when we are on a forum which compliments digital transactions.

[funkenstein]

Lets take a step back. 

I want some of your apples.  You don't want to just give a few to me.  So, I look around through my bag for something to trade.  I find some old shells, you agree to a trade.

Is this barter?   

Now, assume that I call these shells "money".  Is this barter? 

Isn't money just a commonly bartered commodity? 

[Erdogan]

Lets take a step back.  

I want some of your apples.  You don't want to just give a few to me.  So, I look around through my bag for something to trade.  I find some old shells, you agree to a trade.

Is this barter?    

Now, assume that I call these shells "money".  Is this barter?  

Isn't money just a commonly bartered commodity?  

It is. And it can be traced in history. On Iceland, for example, a standardized (for trade) homespun cloth was money for a period of time. (For their own use, they used better quality, more diversified types of homespun).

On the confusion introduced by Graeber, who basically says that debt, not money, came first: Yes, probably, but in a static economy of gifts and contra gifts (defined as debt), limited to small groups that did not trade outside the group. Money, in the form of the easiest tradable, most liquid, commodity is necessary for trade over a larger area or world trade. It ended up with gold, and may progress to bitcoin. Fiat can be regarded as somewhat money, somewhat debt (the debtor being the state), it looks tempting in the beginning, more effective than gold in trade, until the users discover that there is a manager, who scams everyone.

[ObscureBean]

Lets take a step back. 

I want some of your apples.  You don't want to just give a few to me.  So, I look around through my bag for something to trade.  I find some old shells, you agree to a trade.

Is this barter?   

Now, assume that I call these shells "money".  Is this barter? 

Isn't money just a commonly bartered commodity? 

Technically it is. The most basic difference is that with a barter system you're exchanging items that are ends-in-themselves (immediately usable and valuable) directly. Money by itself doesn't have a lot of uses, its value comes from being able to exchange it for items that are ends-in-themselves.

[funkenstein]

Thanks for your replies, they are helpful. 

I see that what we have here is a literary construction similar to how the word "animal" is used.  That is, sometimes the word is used to the exclusion of human beings.  Not that anyone for one second imagines that homo sapiens are actually plants or funguses, but rather - that is just a shorthand of speech, that "animal" can mean "non-human animal".   

Similarly, we have established that trade or barter for exchange commodities, i.e. monies, is in fact barter, however that the term "barter" itself can often mean "non-exchange-commodity barter". 

Consider: an animal which wears clothes and plays Bach is not an animal.  Barter for an exchange commodity is not barter.

So now lets consider the question of the "barter economy".  What could this mean?   I'm not sure it is a meaningful distinction in the OP subject.  In fact, I dislike the literary short of hand I have just described.  Lets avoid it. 

 

[Erdogan]

Thanks for your replies, they are helpful. 

I see that what we have here is a literary construction similar to how the word "animal" is used.  That is, sometimes the word is used to the exclusion of human beings.  Not that anyone for one second imagines that homo sapiens are actually plants or funguses, but rather - that is just a shorthand of speech, that "animal" can mean "non-human animal".   

Similarly, we have established that trade or barter for exchange commodities, i.e. monies, is in fact barter, however that the term "barter" itself can often mean "non-exchange-commodity barter". 

Consider: an animal which wears clothes and plays Bach is not an animal.  Barter for an exchange commodity is not barter.

So now lets consider the question of the "barter economy".  What could this mean?   I'm not sure it is a meaningful distinction in the OP subject.  In fact, I dislike the literary short of hand I have just described.  Lets avoid it. 

 

Let me try: A barter economy is where usable goods are traded for usable goods, and where no commodity is preferred in trade due to its liquidity.

[funkenstein]

Let me try: A barter economy is where usable goods are traded for usable goods, and where no commodity is preferred in trade due to its liquidity.

Sounded good at first, however, how can no commodity be preferred?  Suppose, you have a lot of rice and that is your preferred commodity.  Now, ditch the rice.  Something else is now preferred, maybe wheat or rice basket or cigarettes.  Whatever you have the most of, and are most willing to part with, is the money.  That's Gresham's law.  If the warden cracks down on cigarettes, what will be the preferred commodity for trade now?  Handjobs?  There will always be a most-liquid asset for any individual. 

The distinction between barter and trade is a qualitative one, in that the former implies smaller scale, and more haggling.  Otherwise, no difference. 

[Erdogan]

Let me try: A barter economy is where usable goods are traded for usable goods, and where no commodity is preferred in trade due to its liquidity.

Sounded good at first, however, how can no commodity be preferred?  Suppose, you have a lot of rice and that is your preferred commodity.  Now, ditch the rice.  Something else is now preferred, maybe wheat or rice basket or cigarettes.  Whatever you have the most of, and are most willing to part with, is the money.  That's Gresham's law.  If the warden cracks down on cigarettes, what will be the preferred commodity for trade now?  Handjobs?  There will always be a most-liquid asset for any individual.  

The distinction between barter and trade is a qualitative one, in that the former implies smaller scale, and more haggling.  Otherwise, no difference.  

If one good is preferred due to its liquidity, meaning it is easy to sell because everyone want it(because it is easy to sell...), then that is the money, and it is no longer a barter economy. That was the point.

[funkenstein]

kk, thanks Erdogan et al. and my apologies for inane posts.  It helped me solidify definitions, so not entirely useless