EH.R: Is Trade Unique to Humans?

[Morris Silver]

Like Professor Walker I will go back to basic economics. This is one of the
reasons I have chosen to study ancient economies.

I have always understood that trade between (say) two individuals (humans or
chimps or bats?) is based on differences in initial endowments of goods
and/or differences in tastes. These differences give rise to differences
between individuals in subjective rates of exchange or trade-offs between
(say) two goods. (This includes present and future dated goods.) It becomes
possible by redistributing a given initial bundles of goods for each
individual to become better off than by consuming his initial endowment.

Trade will take place provided that: (1) at least one of the potential
traders  is/becomes  aware of the trading opportunity; (2) transaction costs
are not prohibitive and (3) individuals prefer to be better off according to
their own values. The benefits to traders are entirely subjective.

Trade does not require that one individual compare his benefit with the
benefit reaped by his trading partner. (I would suggest that the typical
individual is not envious or spiteful and cares primarily about what will
benefit him/her.)  Bargaining may set the market rate of exchange but it
does not explain or define trade. Indeed, trade does not require bargaining.

May nonhuman animals have different subjective rates of exchange? Are they
capable of acting on the basis of these differences? My answer is "Yes."

Best wishes,
Morris

Morris Silver
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
City College of New York

ANCIENT ECONOMIES I
http://sondmor.tripod.com/index-html
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John G Walker" <johngwalker at tiscali.co.uk>
To: "Economic History Research Ideas" <eh.res at eh.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: EH.R: Is Trade Unique to Humans?


> ----------------- EH.RES POSTING -----------------
> RE: Vampire Bats and Currency
>
> I don't think anyone has suggested that vampire bats use currency, let
alone account ledgers!
>
> By value, I'm going right back to basics. Suppose.for example, I tell
Professor Silver that I'll expand on what I said, but he'll have to give me
something in return. So maybe he offers to translate a bit of ancient
Egyptian for me. Not a lot, because my explanation may not be worth that
much to him. I disagree with what he has to offer, we haggle and eventually
come up with something we'll both agree to.
>
> In this, there's some sort of implied measurement. I'll give away
something I don't want in return for something I do. There may not be
explicit measurement involved here, but it's implied. I have to estimate,
however loosely, that what I'm getting is in some way equivalent to what I'm
giving away. And that's what I mean by "value".
>
> Once trade is monetised, then measurement becomes more exact. In in our
monetised, capitalist world, haggling has ceased to exist, having been
replaced by metaphorical shoe-leather(now weightlessly and imperceptibly
worn away by many as they compare prices on the World-Wide Web.) But the
principle is the same.
>
> This is rather different to the behaviour of vampire bats, who merely
contribute and take out, without heed to how much, which is a concept I
doubt they'd be able to comprehend.
>
> -- 
>  All the best,
>  John
>
> ----------------- FOOTER TO EH.RES POSTING -----------------
> EH.Res at eh.net
> http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/eh.res