Do you like to work harder for less?

[Matt3737]

I don't know if I would truly say that within the initial formation of civilization that everything was a "gift". I would have to think about that concept.

It is, but muir puts a biased spin on it as is usual.

Reciprocity in social psychology refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, rewarding kind actions. As a social construct, reciprocity means that in response to friendly actions, people are frequently much nicer and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal.

muir's assumption being that conflict will cease to exist or be much more limited comparatively.

The ideology behind bartering as the basis for exchange suffers from several severe limitations:

Limitations

Barter's limits are usually explained in terms of its inefficiencies in easing exchange in comparison to the functions of money:

Need for presence of double coincidence of wants
For barter to occur between two people, both would need to have what the other wants.

Absence of common measure of value
In a monetary economy, money plays the role of a measure of value of all goods, so their values can be measured against each other; this role may be absent in a barter economy.

Indivisibility of certain goods
If a person wants to buy a certain amount of another's goods, but only has for payment one indivisible unit of another good which is worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a barter transaction cannot occur.

Lack of standards for deferred payments
This is related to the absence of a common measure of value, although if the debt is denominated in units of the good that will eventually be used in payment, it is not a problem.

Difficulty in storing wealth
If a society relies exclusively on perishable goods, storing wealth for the future may be impractical. However, some barter economies rely on durable goods like pigs or cattle for this purpose.

Advantages

Direct barter does not require payment in money (when money is in short supply) hence will be utilized when there is little information about the credit worthiness of trade partners or there is a lack of trust.

The poor cannot afford to store their small supply of wealth in money, especially in situations where money devalues quickly (hyperinflation).

The most severe is the coincidence of wants:

The coincidence of wants problem (often "double coincidence of wants") is an important category of transaction costs that impose severe limitations on economies lacking money and thus dominated by barter or other in-kind transactions. The problem is caused by the improbability of the wants, needs or events that cause or motivate a transaction occurring at the same time and the same place.

Though gift exchange is somewhat an ambiguous and loosely defined concept between free and proscribed behavior. One might ask whether the act of giving a gift constitutes an obligation on the receiving party to reciprocate. A gift, by definition, would have no such obligation:

In cultural anthropology, reciprocity refers to the non-market exchange of goods or labour ranging from direct barter (immediate exchange) to forms of gift exchange where a return is eventually expected (delayed exchange) as in the exchange of birthday gifts. It is thus distinct from the true gift, where no return is expected. Reciprocity is said to be the basis of most non-market exchange. David Graeber argues, "as currently used, 'reciprocity' can mean almost anything. It is very close to meaningless."

 

[Nixie]

The milk is given as a gift from the mother

From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need


The mother is able to give milk, the baby needs the milk

Yes but I'm not talking about the milk. I'm talking about the idea that there is "action" required to receive the milk. The receiving of the milk becomes associated with the action (crying)....thus becoming the basis of quid pro quo. Most mothers don't run around with their nipples hanging out and trying to shove them their babies mouths...so they wait for the "signal" that the baby is hungry.

 

[muir]

Yes but I'm not talking about the milk. I'm talking about the idea that there is "action" required to receive the milk. The receiving of the milk becomes associated with the action (crying)....thus becoming the basis of quid pro quo. Most mothers don't run around with their nipples hanging out and trying to shove them their babies mouths...so they wait for the "signal" that the baby is hungry.

In your initial post you seemed to be saying that we are brought up from an early age to get something in return for our demands?

A baby doesn't yet differentiate itself as a seperate being from reality itself...it hasn't developed that level of ego awareness (some liken that stage to the biblical fall from the garden of eden)

The baby is in need though and the mother meets that need because she can

In the future the child will no doubt help the mother with things once it is able to but the mother does not expect anything in return from the baby so it is not a quid pro quo transaction

 

[Nixie]

It might be making too fine of a distinction here. What I'm saying is that we are socially conditioned from an early age that action creates reaction. That if we do Action A we get Reaction B. This for That. It creates an understanding of the quid pro quo which can then naturally lead one to understand the basis of "value".

 

[muir]

It might be making too fine of a distinction here. What I'm saying is that we are socially conditioned from an early age that action creates reaction. That if we do Action A we get Reaction B. This for That. It creates an understanding of the quid pro quo which can then naturally lead one to understand the basis of "value".

My understanding is that the current view on this is that people don't begin to form conventional memories until about 18 months

Before this the 'memory' they form is more of an impression

So for example if a mother is attentive and feeds the child when it is hungry then the child develops a more positive view of the world as a place that can potentially meet its needs

If the child is neglected then it develops an impression that the world is not so friendly

So the child crying out does not have any sense of itself as a seperate entity....no differentiated identity; it is operating purely from instinct

However if its needs are met it develops an impression that its needs might be met in this world which helps it form positive connections with others in later life under the 'smile and the world smiles with you' principle

A persn who is optomistic of having its needs met in the world has a healthy self esteem which is the perfect foundation for engaging in a gift economy