Why are some people so rich and some people so poor?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Yeah it was not that bartering didn't exist the thing we were contesting is that it was the main form of trade within a community. Evidence shows that within communities the economy was basically a gift economy.SEANMCAD

let me help you a little KC_Hokie.

its not that Inequality exist because of income. they are not directly related.

Iequality simply exists, with or without income. but if the exitence of income facilitates it more than if it didnt exist then we have problems.

thus stating income = inequality is a pretty dicy postion to take you might want to think it thru more

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]I'll just pop in and say that it is evidenced by reading this thread that no one here has ever actually read a history book on native americans. SEANMCAD

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

GUYS! let me clarify something. The orginal statement that bartering didnt exist had a disclaimer I think got forgotten and that was 'execpt for strangers are possible enamies'

within a community there really isnt a need to barter, if there is it means trust is breaking down or the community is to large and likely breaks into other communities anyway.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="RushKing"] No, you could easily do it in a small scale today.RushKing

What happens if some of those 6 people don't want to do any work?

How do you penalize them?

By not giving them food?

Then it's the same as not having currency to buy food.

On a large scale currency is just a means of keeping track of who works and who doesn't.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Yeah it was not that bartering didn't exist the thing we were contesting is that it was the main form of trade within a community. Evidence shows that within communities the economy was basically a gift economy.kuraimen

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"] its been a long time but as I recall they did not barter and we basically introduced the concept to them.

SEANMCAD

your being random.

we were talking about bartering existing, not inequality of it, two different subjects.

as a side note if a tribe didnt need horses they really wouldnt care how many you had so its inequality about as much as the guy who has more fat around his waste then I do is.

And were you implying the Maya, Inca, Anasazi, and Cahokians didn't understand the concept of trade before Europeans arrived?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Do you have any evidence that tribes shared everything evenly and didn't trade among themselves? KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Sure: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/what-is-debt-%E2%80%93-an-interview-with-economic-anthropologist-david-graeber.html Question: Perhaps this is a good place to ask you about how you conceive your work on debt in relation to the great French anthropologist Marcel Mauss classic work on gift exchange. DG: Oh, in my own way I think of myself as working very much in the Maussian tradition. Mauss was one of the first anthropologists to ask: well, all right, if not barter, then what? What do people who dont use money actually do when things change hands? Anthropologists had documented an endless variety of such economic systems, but hadnt really worked out common principles. What Mauss noticed was that in almost all of them, everyone pretended as if they were just giving one another gifts and then they fervently denied they expected anything back. But in actual fact everyone understood there were implicit rules and recipients would feel compelled to make some sort of return. What fascinated Mauss was that this seemed to be universally true, even today. If I take a free-market economist out to dinner hell feel like he should return the favor and take me out to dinner later. He might even think that he is something of chump if he doesnt and this even if his theory tells him he just got something for nothing and should be happy about it. Why is that? What is this force that compels me to want to return a gift? This is an important argument, and it shows there is always a certain morality underlying what we call economic life. But it strikes me that if you focus too much on just that one aspect of Mauss argument you end up reducing everything to exchange again, with the proviso that some people are pretending they arent doing that. Mauss didnt really think of everything in terms of exchange; this becomes clear if you read his other writings besides The Gift. Mauss insisted there were lots of different principles at play besides reciprocity in any society including our own. For example, take hierarchy. Gifts given to inferiors or superiors dont have to be repaid at all. If another professor takes our economist out to dinner, sure, hell feel that he should reciprocate; but if an eager grad student does, hell probably figure just accepting the invitation is favor enough; and if George Soros buys him dinner, then great, he did get something for nothing after all. In explicitly unequal relations, if you give somebody something, far from doing you a favor back, theyre more likely to expect you to do it again. Or take communistic relations and I define this, following Mauss actually, as any ones where people interact on the basis of from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. In these relations people do not rely on reciprocity, for example, when trying to solve a problem, even inside a capitalist firm. (As I always say, if somebody working for Exxon says, hand me the screwdriver, the other guy doesnt say, yeah and what do I get for it?) Communism is in a way the basis of all social relations in that if the need is great enough (Im drowning) or the cost small enough (can I have a light?) everyone will be expected to act that way. Anyway thats one thing I got from Mauss. There are always going to be lots of different sorts of principles at play simultaneously in any social or economic system which is why we can never really boil these things down to a science. Economics tries to, but it does it by ignoring everything except exchange. kuraimen

And even if true just because my family gives each other gifts doesn't mean trade doesn't exist. There is still income inequality.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? They never said trade didn't exist just that WITHIN A COMMUNITY the economy was a gift economy NOT BARTER.kuraimen

Gift economy = social barter

The difference is whether you formalize the giving with currency or just keep track of favors in your head.

Nobody gives you free stuff for nothing.

Ass gass or grass, nobody rides for free.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

your being random.

we were talking about bartering existing, not inequality of it, two different subjects.

as a side note if a tribe didnt need horses they really wouldnt care how many you had so its inequality about as much as the guy who has more fat around his waste then I do is.

SEANMCAD

And were you implying the Maya, Inca, Anasazi, and Cahokians didn't understand the concept of trade before Europeans arrived?

I wish we could talk about the two DIFFERENT subjects not interchangebly as much its causes problems

SUBJECT 1: Did communities exist without bartering. YES! did the communities barter between OTHER communities YES! did some large communities have bartering inside the community YES! did the native americans we met on the shore barter? as I recall NO but someone can validate that for me if they wish. ok so now we can put that one to rest

SUBJECT 2: does income cause inequality. If I dont need what you got is it inequality becasue I dont have some of it? sure but does it mean much? not really. One of my co-workers has a lot more fat then me, inequal? yes

Under any economic system in human history there was income inequality. Always has always will.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And the archeological data doesn't support his opinion: 17,000-year old cave painting reveals prehistoric trade of scarce mineral

KC_Hokie

And even if true just because my family gives each other gifts doesn't mean trade doesn't exist. There is still income inequality.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Are you intentionally being obtuse? They never said trade didn't exist just that WITHIN A COMMUNITY the economy was a gift economy NOT BARTER.ZombieKiller7

Gift economy = social barter

The difference is whether you formalize the giving with currency or just keep track of favors in your head.

Nobody gives you free stuff for nothing.

Ass gass or grass, nobody rides for free.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

I wish we could talk about the two DIFFERENT subjects not interchangebly as much its causes problems

SUBJECT 1: Did communities exist without bartering. YES! did the communities barter between OTHER communities YES! did some large communities have bartering inside the community YES! did the native americans we met on the shore barter? as I recall NO but someone can validate that for me if they wish. ok so now we can put that one to rest

SUBJECT 2: does income cause inequality. If I dont need what you got is it inequality becasue I dont have some of it? sure but does it mean much? not really. One of my co-workers has a lot more fat then me, inequal? yes

SEANMCAD

Under any economic system in human history there was income inequality. Always has always will.

read it again, very closely the details are important. people within a company work together but the companies competes with OTHER companies.

also I added a 3rd topic.

SUBJECT 3: does income CAUSE inequality or does it already exist.

that is a question more for you

And there is still income inequality at both levels

"does income CAUSE inequality or does it already exist":

Not sure why that matters. That's like asking which one comes first the chicken or the egg. The fact is income inequality has always existed and always will.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Are you intentionally being obtuse? They never said trade didn't exist just that WITHIN A COMMUNITY the economy was a gift economy NOT BARTER.kuraimen

Gift economy = social barter

The difference is whether you formalize the giving with currency or just keep track of favors in your head.

Nobody gives you free stuff for nothing.

Ass gass or grass, nobody rides for free.

And if 90 people work hard and 10 people don't?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yea the archeological evidence doesn't support the notion everything was gifted at one level while traded as income at another.

And even if true just because my family gives each other gifts doesn't mean trade doesn't exist. There is still income inequality.

SEANMCAD

generally speaking they were all to busy with day to day to worry about if Johnny got an extra chicken leg or not so it doesnt come up.

I have no doubt that larger communities it becomes an issue but small communites no need

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Gift economy = social barter

The difference is whether you formalize the giving with currency or just keep track of favors in your head.

Nobody gives you free stuff for nothing.

Ass gass or grass, nobody rides for free.

ZombieKiller7

And if 90 people work hard and 10 people don't?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

read it again, very closely the details are important. people within a company work together but the companies competes with OTHER companies.

also I added a 3rd topic.

SUBJECT 3: does income CAUSE inequality or does it already exist.

that is a question more for you

SEANMCAD

And there is still income inequality at both levels

"does income CAUSE inequality or does it already exist":

Not sure why that matters. That's like asking which one comes first the chicken or the egg. The fact is income inequality has always existed and always will.

so we WERE talking about bartering existing NOW we are talking about inequality are you doing this on purpose?

try to keep the two subjects seperated please, you are using one as an arguement for the other and fliping back and forth more than a flap jack

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The benefit for everyone is that the community works. If the community doesn't work then everyone dies. That's why sharing without expecting individual direct compensation makes sense.SEANMCAD

And if 90 people work hard and 10 people don't?

in small communities living off the land if you dont pull your wieght your life will be very unpleasant and ultimately kicked out. I have heard that the magic size is 150. Communities larger than that start to have problems

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The benefit for everyone is that the community works. If the community doesn't work then everyone dies. That's why sharing without expecting individual direct compensation makes sense.SEANMCAD

And if 90 people work hard and 10 people don't?

in small communities living off the land if you dont pull your wieght your life will be very unpleasant and ultimately kicked out. I have heard that the magic size is 150. Communities larger than that start to have problems

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The benefit for everyone is that the community works. If the community doesn't work then everyone dies. That's why sharing without expecting individual direct compensation makes sense.kuraimen

And if 90 people work hard and 10 people don't?

so we WERE talking about bartering existing NOW we are talking about inequality are you doing this on purpose?

try to keep the two subjects seperated please, you are using one as an arguement for the other and fliping back and forth more than a flap jack

Yeah in larger communities you get job specialization, then classes and rigid power structures and so inequality begins to really be an issue.kuraimen

In large communities you can't keep track of favors in your head.

You have to formalize it with currency.

Over time it becomes a different beast with currency exchange rates, hedge funds, derivatives and all kind of funky concepts that are not based on actual productivity or work.

See

If you and me work to cut down a tree, and you work harder, you deserve that extra chicken leg.

But if I cut down a tree, and you sit in an office trading tree parts, I make $100, you make $6000. It begins to feel unfair.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] Not without any sort of income noZombieKiller7

What happens if some of those 6 people don't want to do any work?

How do you penalize them?

By not giving them food?

Then it's the same as not having currency to buy food.

On a large scale currency is just a means of keeping track of who works and who doesn't.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yeah in larger communities you get job specialization, then classes and rigid power structures and so inequality begins to really be an issue.ZombieKiller7

In large communities you can't keep track of favors in your head.

You have to formalize it with currency.

Over time it becomes a different beast with currency exchange rates, hedge funds, derivatives and all kind of funky concepts that are not based on actual productivity or work.

See

If you and me work to cut down a tree, and you work harder, you deserve that extra chicken leg.

But if I cut down a tree, and you sit in an office trading tree parts, I make $100, you make $6000. It begins to feel unfair.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The benefit for everyone is that the community works. If the community doesn't work then everyone dies. That's why sharing without expecting individual direct compensation makes sense.SEANMCAD

And if 90 people work hard and 10 people don't?

in small communities living off the land if you dont pull your wieght your life will be very unpleasant and ultimately kicked out. I have heard that the magic size is 150. Communities larger than that start to have problems

But isn't that exactly what happens when people don't earn enough?

Their life becomes very unpleasant and they get kicked out (evicted.)

The modern world mirrors prehistoric life in alot of ways.

In some ways it doesn't, but %99 of it is the same.

Same hunt, same principles.

ie "Work hard or starve b*tch."

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] What would you call a group of 6 cooperating and surviving on a island without any currency?RushKing

What happens if some of those 6 people don't want to do any work?

How do you penalize them?

By not giving them food?

Then it's the same as not having currency to buy food.

On a large scale currency is just a means of keeping track of who works and who doesn't.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yeah in larger communities you get job specialization, then classes and rigid power structures and so inequality begins to really be an issue.kuraimen

In large communities you can't keep track of favors in your head.

You have to formalize it with currency.

Over time it becomes a different beast with currency exchange rates, hedge funds, derivatives and all kind of funky concepts that are not based on actual productivity or work.

See

If you and me work to cut down a tree, and you work harder, you deserve that extra chicken leg.

But if I cut down a tree, and you sit in an office trading tree parts, I make $100, you make $6000. It begins to feel unfair.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

And if 90 people work hard and 10 people don't?

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Then they expelled that 10%. Early societies worked in a way that everyone had to be useful for the community those who were harmful for it were either expelled (which usually meant death) or killed.SEANMCAD

Nobody is saying income inequality doesnt exist!!!

the question is WHY and does inequality is BECAUSE of income or does it already exist regardless.

posting more and more evidence to something that nobody is argueing is ...well odd.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? I don't really give a flying **** because the damn tree is on the ground in the end.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

In large communities you can't keep track of favors in your head.

You have to formalize it with currency.

Over time it becomes a different beast with currency exchange rates, hedge funds, derivatives and all kind of funky concepts that are not based on actual productivity or work.

See

If you and me work to cut down a tree, and you work harder, you deserve that extra chicken leg.

But if I cut down a tree, and you sit in an office trading tree parts, I make $100, you make $6000. It begins to feel unfair.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] yeah in larger communities I agree but in small communities of around 150 like Dunbar has observed things work differently.kuraimen

Applying the activities of primates to ancient humans is theoretical not observed.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And that's a form of income inequality. Having to kick someone out or let them die isn't equality in terms of resources or tribal income. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And that's a form of income inequality. Having to kick someone out or let them die isn't equality in terms of resources or tribal income. SEANMCAD

I produce more trash than my neighboor, that is inequality

You guys are not understanding.

Currency is just a placeholder.

A placeholder for favors.

A placeholder for food.

A placeholder for getting banished.

Everything that happened 50000 years ago has an equal result in terms of currency and not being able to buy what you need.

No money = banished

No money = you don't get to eat because you didn't work with the tribe

In that sense income inequality existed before there was income.

And it was based on your VALUE to other people and their survival.

If other people need you, you are valuable.

If you are a drain on society, then in every society it is preferable that you starve, die and remove yourself from the genepool.

This was true 50,000 years ago

It was true 5000 years ago

It was true for American Indians, Europeans, Chinese, Romans, Africans and everybody else.

You cannot have 90 people working and 10 people sitting around, and everybody gets the same amount of food/currency/whatever.

If I am sweating then I need to see you sweat.

If I am hunting I need to see you hunt.

I was not put on this Earth to feed you, so you can sit around and play video games.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Even that Dunbar number has a huge margin of error and is theoretical. KC_Hokie

Applying the activities of primates to ancient humans is theoretical not observed.

And he observed human groups too and found the same. I think you have trouble understanding written text.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

What happens if some of those 6 people don't want to do any work?

How do you penalize them?

By not giving them food?

Then it's the same as not having currency to buy food.

On a large scale currency is just a means of keeping track of who works and who doesn't.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Is not an exact science but it has been observed too not just theorized. "In a 1992 article, Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory due to the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230). Dunbar then compared this prediction with observable group sizes for humans. Beginning with the assumption that the current mean size of the human neocortex had developed about 250,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, Dunbar searched the anthropological and ethnographical literature for census-like group size information for various huntergatherer societies, the closest existing approximations to how anthropology reconstructs the Pleistocene societies. Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories small, medium and large, equivalent to bands, cultural lineage groups and tribes with respective size ranges of 3050, 100200 and 5002500 members each. Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements; 200 as the upper bound on the number of academics in a discipline's sub-specialization; 150 as the basic unit size of professional armies in Roman antiquity and in modern times since the 16th century; and notions of appropriate company size. Dunbar has argued that 150 would be the mean group size only for communities with a very high incentive to remain together. "kuraimen

Applying the activities of primates to ancient humans is theoretical not observed.