Talk:Gift economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been mentioned by a media organization.

The citation is in: Fox, Justin (February 15, 2007). "Getting Rich off Those Who Work for Free". Time magazine.

Recent addition to the page: "Anarcho-communism uses a gift economy, as there is no money or market. Products are given away and freely distributed." I can't exactly disagree, but this seems an odd statement given that (1) the page Anarcho-communism does not even link to gift economy and (2) the only even indirect reference to a gift economy on that page is in discussing the ancient philosopher Zeno. -- Jmabel 01:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to add a section on the Sharing Economy, Pro-Am Revolution and Commons Based Peer Production. -- Joi 07:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the following: The concept of a gift economy is also important in the cultures of East Asia. In Japan it takes the form of "butso-butso-kokan" (object-object-exchange) in which a personal gift is made to co-workers, neighbors,etc. and in which considerations of monetary value is specifically excluded. In China it can be found in Chinese social relations and guanxi. People in East Asian societies exchange gifts in order to cement social relationships.

People everywhere "exchange gifts in order to cement social relationships", there's nothing East Asian about this — and calling this a "gift economy" is a major stretch. (And oh, butsu butsu kōkan, lit. thing-thing exchange, is just the Japanese word for barter.) Jpatokal 11:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although I didn't write that particular deleted section, I guess the point was that it is done in a more systematic way in east asia than in the US for instance. Having said that, without describing what that systematic way is, it's weak and agree with the deletion. Joi 04:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Self-reference

Although Wikipedia almost certainly deserves mention in this article, does it contradict Wikipedia: Avoid self-references in its current form? Perhaps if the "and the article you are currently reading" were eliminated. Derrick Coetzee 23:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I don't believe that the first sentence of the article is accurate. Right now it says, "A gift economy is an economic system in which participants give away things of value for the shared benefit of the community." This is no more true than if one said "A market economy is an economic system in which participants truck and barter for the shared benefit of the community" or "A socialist economy is an economic system in which industry is managed for the shared benefit of the community." The claim of benefit here is just an assumption that gift economies are good. I believe it would be much more accurate to say "A gift ecomony is one in which participants give away things of value without directly receiving money or things of value in exchange. In general, an equivalent return is expected, but not in the form of an explicit quid pro quo." Does anyone have a problem with that? I'll leave at least 24 hours for response before I make the edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the definition could use some clarification, but what exactly is the problem? "for the shared benefit of the community"? This sounds true-- after all, gift economies don't exist to give away things to the detriment of the community-- but the definition of "beneficial" and who benefits is certainly up to question. Perhaps the gift only benefits the receiver.

Perhaps we should approach this first sentence by placing it in context of the systems of economics, such as A gift economy is an economic system in which goods and services are given, rather than traded. --Chira 06:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Role of Scarcity

I remember hearing that a gift economy tends to happen where humans are scarce and there is a surplus of goods. Perhaps this was mentioned in The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Does anyone know more about the role of surplus vs. scarcity and how it effects the economic system that people tend to use? --Chira 06:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear to me that the gift economy was the norm for all humans at some point in the past (and beyond). It's the money economy (exchange economy) that *requires* scarcity to exist. In a money economy, if scarcity does not exist, it's created. Otherwise the money economy would come to a screeching halt. For example, if farmers grow "too much" corn, they're paid to destroy some of it.

Personally, I think the exchange economy is the pits. I'd like to see the entire world return to a gift economy. That, however, would take some pretty significant changes in hundreds of thousands of other aspects of our cultures -- child rearing for starters. Probably our best bet is to adopt a mix of the exchange and gift economies for a while. There's a great article with this angle as its premise at http://www.morethanmoney.org/magazine/current_issue/mtm34_culture.htm

Athana 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Software vs Open Source software

I've removed «There is some confusion about the terms free software and open source software. Open source software may be free (to copy & modify), but it also may restrict copying and modifying. The author quoted below seems to use them as synonyms: ».

Justification : just read The Open Source Definition (http://opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php) articles 1 and 3 and you'll see that this sentence is false :

«1. Free Redistribution. The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.»

and

«3. Derived Works. The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.»

So, I agree that FS & OSS are different, but :

it's not the right place to make such distinctions
it's not on these peculiar matters that they differ.

-- Raph 14:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Gift Cultures

This statement worries me: Gift economies in the form of communal sharing of food were and are almost universally practiced among ancient and modern hunter-gatherer societies, where sharing acts as a safeguard against the possible failure of any individual's daily foraging. Where's the research? And how did the researcher get information about all those ancient hunter-gatherer societies that we haven't discovered? And how did the researcher arrive at the theory that these people practice a gift ecenomy in order to "safeguard against possible failure"?

I'd prefer to have this section rewritten to something like According to so-and-so, gift economies in the form of communal sharing... etc. Or better yet, replace it with a few examples of hunter-gatherer gift economies, and a few leading theories into why they practiced gift economies. --Chira 07:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gifting way

Someone has linked this to an article Gifting way that looks to me like new age claptrap. It certainly has nothing to do with economics. I have reverted once and it has been restored. I leave it to someone else to make the next revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation

This article is quite haphazard and unclear.

There should be clear distinction between elaborating on the idea of a gift economy, and theoretical issues, and examples. I will try to partially reorganise it for now. -- Natalinasmpf 20:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Part of this page sounded a tad bit like propaganda for the idea of a gift economy, with very vague references, so I excised it for being opinionated description rather than an unbiased description. I hope someone can come up with the names of tribes that "used gift economy" rather than just their general region, as it's likely not all hunter-gatherer societies used a gift economy exclusively (many European tribal groups of hunter gatherers tended to use trade rather than "free sharing" and "gift economy"), and trade seems to be a well known method of exchange among many aboriginal tribes, long before the Europeans came. This paragraph also over-generalises, but I'm not using it in an article, I'm explaining my reasons for deleting the unsubstantiable claims, overgeneralised and ambiguous supporting examples, and often opinionated style some paragraphs were written in. I left the comment about the Pacific Northwest tribes, because I do believe I've read that the Digger Indian tribe that lived on the west coast somewhere was without a formal trade system (nor with fire, nor with tools). (user: September Virgin. No referent.) 13:14 AM CST, 15 May 2005

You are welcome to weed out generalised statements and replace them with more accurate ones, just not delete them entirely. If they are POV, fix it - don't delete the entire paragraph. I believe it says many tribes, not all? -- Natalinasmpf 12:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] peer to peer

Peer to Peer file sharing (for better or worse) is probably also a gift economy? Not sure how to word it, so will leave it to someone else to write up. Mat-C 01:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be related to free software, though? -- Natalinasmpf 01:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be related to free software, in fact I'm having a problem seeing how F/OSS is an example of a Gift Economy. Information trading yes, and that would include P2P (legal or not, IP or not), but not F/OSS projects. The F/OSS community at large, maybe. Apache and a SQL server project may create between them (and other parties) a gift economy, but I can't see how withing Apache itself there is a Gift Economy. JoeHenzi 02:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no rewards?!

it says that wikipedians get no matterial rewards. however this is not really true, they get a free encyclopedea with alot of free information which can be used for all sorts of purposes.

Wikipedia is essentially a public good. What the article is saying is that contributors are not directly rewarded for their contributions (except perhaps by the occasional compliment).

To give an analogy, if a group of townspeople volunteer to build and run a lighthouse, they may benefit indirectly by better trade or saving the lives of family at sea, but they are not directly compensated. However, there's two effects that discourage people from participating in the effort:

The freerider effect: Whether or not a person contributes, they receive the benefit.
The drop-in-the-bucket effect: In a huge work, an individual's contribution seems tiny. Little would be lost, on a relative scale, if they do not contribute.

What's remarkable about gift economies such as Wikipedia is that people contribute despite these effects, for whatever reason. 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

stricktly speaking public good is defined as:

non-rivalry in consumption, no reduction of total public good by a 1 extra consumer consuming the good
non-excludability, no one can be stopped from using this good once its provided

free rider problem arises because of no-excludability factor, its not a charactaristic of a textbook definition of public good as such. what i was talking about is that wikipedia does provide direct reward of straight forward and massive collection of information. any public good provides direct rewards to the consumer too, light house included (villagers will now be able to navigate easier during night fishing for example). so i dont think it is true to say that there are no direct benefits of public goods. in any case a gift does not have to be a public good. what i am saying is that it is very much wrong to assume no direct reward in practice so i think the text should be expanded to include this evaluation.--GregLoutsenko 12:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is a gift economy where the goods have mass based on private property?

The examples of open source and wikipedia both involve the reliquishing of intellectual property (IP) to a community or the public domain. IP is a special case of "property" which is artificially created by government. If government disappeared, all would be free to use information and copy works. However, could a gift economy in goods with mass exist without private propropty? Isn't it the property right which is being transferred? Who has the "right" to give away any particular item? I don't see this discussed in the article. Can someone clarify?--Silverback 21:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

A gift economy is sort of a compromise between private property and public property, reasonable things are kept private, like say, personal items, and what to give is left up to discernment. But really it is public, sort of, because not giving brings about rejection. Mind you, if we ended up in an anarcho-capitalist society (which is oxymoronic, that is more like anomie), then that would still be somewhat private property, just that the enforcement is uncertain. I'm thinking more of the lines of anarcho-communism. -- Natalinasmpf 22:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a well developed theory. So would an individual only be able to gift away personal items, or could public property be given away? A gift economy seems quite limited and poorly defined. It seems to be more a reaction against government and WTO intellectual property laws. There is more to an economy than that.--Silverback 02:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Its a wide-ranging theory, its more like a nature for a many systems of ecnomics, with a common nature. In anarcho-communism. one should regard most things as public property, including public buildings, which is to be maintained by the society. I've actually elaborated a lot on this, just not on Wikipedia...since its an argumentative piece of prose, rather than say an encyclopedic one. The one I favour is towards anarcho-communism, which proposes an economy of a gift economic nature. In a gift economy, anything not personal should be treated like public property, because "personal" usually means its useful only for you. Like say, your toothbrush for instance. No one wants your toothbrush you have used, nor do you want to cede it - compare this with say, a manufacturer of toothbrushes that gives non-personal items to the community. -- Natalinasmpf 02:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anything not personal is public property, who is giving what to whom? What makes it a "gift economy"? Which category would a fishing rod, bait earthworms, a garden, an aquarium (for decoration), a bicycle, a bed, a bed room, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, etc. have?--Silverback 05:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The entire point that its flexible and based on human discernment and empathy to that extent, rather than hard, rigid classification. Rather than hard rigid trade conditions (money and bartering), its based on economic context, ie. to differentiate to giving to end the cycle of poverty versus giving to parasites. Your bed might end up being personal if there's a surplus of it, if the society is facing a shortage, you might very well face pressure to make it public, (which, I guess, is not too bad, I mean in terms of egalitarianism), in the sense of circulating it/sharing it. The same would go for anything, it is based on need/context. Or is that not what you meant? -- Natalinasmpf 11:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant, it is unclear who makes what decisions, and who owns what, and whether parasites or exchanges will be tolerated, and if not who will suppress them and how. A gift economy without gifts doesn't make sense. Public property without any decision making process, nothing to prevent one person who doesn't own it, giving it all to one other person, who also won't own it, so nothing will have been given or received.--Silverback 23:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It tends to be individualistically egalitarian. After all, its kind of unclear in Wikipedia who makes the decisions to "delete", yet it is carried out through vfd/speedy, is it not? Parasites are "not tolerated" in the sense of individually withdrawing support one by one, (which can happen pretty fast). One makes the decision whether to give or not (not to give is basically to "ostracise" parasites, ie. takes many forms, ie. like the article mention formal eviction from the castle hall, or something, or in a modern society, withdrawal of social recognition/support. That is the discernment "not to give". Generally, when to give, who to give to (ie. who needs the resource) is decentralised - ie. this is basically a gift form of economic planning, and is more sensitive/flexible than central planning is. I am generalising at this moment, I can describe it further if you want to. -- 00:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be fleshed out. It would be nice if it could be done in the article, except it sounds like original research. Isn't there a formal literature on the subject? There should be given the prominence both communists and anti-capitalist anarchists give to it.--Silverback 02:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem, I have an entire personal theory on it, although it seems relatively reinvented anyway, (I think?), in terms of searching for better egalitarian economic solutions for economies, thus looking back to our roots and adapting it. -- Natalinasmpf 03:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The concept of gift economies did not so much arise in attempting to imagine some future society that would be a pure gift economy as in trying to explain phenomena that were large enough to be economically significant but could not be explained in terms of barter or markets. For example, behavior within a family can rarely be modeled in terms of barter, much less in terms of markets, but typically makes economic sense, precisely in terms of a gift economy. The first essay of the Lewis Hyde book refernced in the article is very accessible, I really recommend it to anyone trying to understand this idea. I've been meaning for ages to add more to this article, using this and other quite citable sources. I'll try to move it up my priority list. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that gift economies exist, but is it realistic or even meaningful to contend that they can exist without property, and will work on a large scale without coercion. Consider in the family, as children grow older, they are expected to share in the work and to undertake responsibilities. While some families may manage this transition without coercion, often punishment, or perhaps withholding of "gifts" or privileges, etc are used. Eventually older children may be expect to leave or are even expelled. BTW, the old english poem "The Wanderer" also seems to describe a gift economy, when it laments the loss of the leader who distributed the spoils of raids. So despite their raiding ways, (externally definitely not gift), internally they seem a gift economy.--Silverback 08:03, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Withholding of gifts as a penalty for non-conducive behaviour/parasitism, including expulsion, are all considered a valid, non liberty infringing form of a gift economy. Compare this with being sent to a gulag, being sent to prison....think Athenian ostracism - for example, "formal evictionj from a lord's hall" which was quoted from the article, is basically a form of expulsion, among many other things. I don't think its coercion: after all, its not coercion to withdraw something you are GIVING, after all. You aren't caning/abusing the person - a gift economy is based on people who gives gifts to those who depend on them, and receives gifts from those they depend on - if the person is being parasitical/naughty/etc. then, I don't see what's wrong with basically ostracising him or her from the community. -- Natalinasmpf 08:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point in general for the simple cases, but I am specifically interested in gift economies that claim to be able to exist without property, property rights or the freedom to exchange, yet claim also to be non-coercive.--Silverback 09:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The individual makes up his or her mind about whether he or she wants it as property. Its basically, property rights exist, but the concept of hoarding property highly discouraged. This makes it good for the individual, without abuse and authoritarianism, while solving the normal excesses of an economic system by trade. Basically, the concept of property is virtually non-existent, because the culture isn't in "owning" things. Property rights exist, but the concept/culture of property does not. -- Natalinasmpf 09:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, right now the article is a mess. Much of it seems to be based on what a few individuals thought of when they saw the title, rather than on any citable sources. I will quote one accurate sentence from the article, though, to address some of the above: "Note that there are societies where gift recipients are expected to give something in return, typically political support, military services and general loyalty, or even return gifts and favors." Even gifts aren't free.

Silverback, you ask, "is it realistic or even meaningful to contend that they can exist without property, and will work on a large scale without coercion." I, for one, have never heard of a gift economy in a society where there was not some notion of property, but, as I presume you know, concepts of property vary wildly from one society to another and from one era to another: whether one can own land, whether one can own other human beings, whether one can own intellectual property, whether one can own material property that is not for personal use, whether one can own the means by which people ascend to heaven.

Silverback, you speak of "gift economies that claim to be able to exist without property, property rights or the freedom to exchange". Two remarks: (1) Is there a specific context you are referring to? If so, is it a real-world context, or just someone's imagined utopia? (2) Generally an "economy" doesn't make a "claim". Rather, claims are made either by someone describing something that exists or proposing something that might exist. Again, the notion of "gift economy" did not first arise as a proposed ideal, it first arose as en effort to try to bring the tools of economics to bear on phenomena that could not be explained in terms of barter or markets. -- Jmabel | Talk June 28, 2005 05:18 (UTC)

Groups on the communism and anarchism articles are opposed to private property, and claim a gift economy is the replacement. Given the importance they place on their conception of this, I am surprised they haven't paid more attention to this page. I am quite unclear what they mean, since without private property, it is difficult to figure out who has the right to give what to whom.--Silverback June 28, 2005 05:43 (UTC)

Think "stewardship" versus "ownership". You know how environmentalists go "you don't inherit the earth, you borrow it from your children"? The same concept of property. You can make decisions on giving objects, matter, etc., or what was once defined as property as personal discretion within a society, but the entire concept of "owning" property has disappeared. You are right on one thing however, that on the attention placed on this article is perhaps because Karl Marx didn't outline a mechanism for achieving a gift economy, he just said it was inevitable and would "evolve" from a dictatorship of the proleteriat, which is why it receives such poor attention, because everyone concentrates on Marxist-Leninist central planning economic theory instead, and very few people have actually contributed to a theory of gift economics, except in recent years. -- Natalinasmpf 28 June 2005 06:03 (UTC)

[edit] Simulation link

This link: Comparative simulations of simple gift, barter and currency-based economies leads to a page that is not at all self-explanatory. I'm inclined to get rid of it, but on the other hand it's not obvious junk. Can someone explain what's there and either second me in getting rid of it or explain why we should keep it? -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 06:04 (UTC)

Yes, it's a badly-organised wiki. Work on the project also seems to have stalled for lack of interest. But here's my summary, from what I could understand of it:

It's a Python program to simulate simple economies.
The economy is modelled as a collection of "agents". Each agent requires at least one kind of "resource" to survive.
Agents can "forage" for resources or get them from other agents. How well each agent can forage is random.
Four different models of agent cooperation were trialled:
- Non-cooperative: No trading allowed whatsoever.
- Gift economy: Agents simply give their surplus to their most needy neighbour.
- Barter: Agents can exchange a resource in surplus for one they need.
- Money: Agents start out with a fixed amount of currency and can buy or sell resources at auctions.

The gift economy consistently ended up with the most survivors and the least surplus.

—Ghakko 7 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

So do you think it's a useful link? I can't tell from your comments. It sounds to me like it simulates a rather trivial model of a gift economy, since from your description it seems to assume that everyone is perfectly benevolent. In reality, a successful gift economy is quite complex: lacking any explicit quid pro quo, there are usually elaborate social rewards and punishments that get those with a surplus to give it away. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:13 (UTC)

I believe it's useful as a tool for reasoning about the nature of economies in a reductionist sense.

But as you've pointed out, the wiki isn't easy to read and I agree that it would be a waste of time for most people. So I'll second that the link be removed.

—Ghakko 8 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

Does the simulation have model a cost for foraging, perhaps foraging activity increases the need for the resources? Is there any benefit to more resources, such as more successful reproduction and higher percentage survival of progeny? --Silverback 07:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Agents needed a certain amount to stay alive, but didn't expend any additional resources when foraging. The only cost of foraging was time. The simulation also didn't model reproduction: there was just the one generation of agents. Dead agents were also not replaced.

The simulation didn't model the "health" of the agents at all. Instead, it used the number of survivors and the amount of surplus generated was used as the yardstick for cooperative success.

—Ghakko 13:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major additions

OK, I've made major additions, drawing heavily on Lewis Hyde. I may have more later, but I'm going to try to give others a chance to get in here. Is there someone involved in this who has actually read Marcel Mauss? If so, I'd really welcome your contribution, I only know his work second-hand through Hyde, and I know that while Mauss influenced Hyde, he draws a slightly darker picture of gift economies (Mauss's "obligation" versus Hyde's "gratitude"). Anyway, I think this is now tremendously stronger than a few weeks ago. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gift economy in Mars Trilogy

I'll mention here a fairly elaborate treatment of a gift economy- described as such- in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, in hopes someone might want to integrate a reference to it into the article. -SM 03:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A criticism

A little anecdote first: In the 70s, the US government decided to set a maximum price for gasoline because OPEC was a meanie and limited supply. The problem was that this maximum price did not reflect the true value of gasoline, and undervalued it. Thus, long queues began to form at gas stations.

However, this "first come first serve" situation did not work out very well for people and the economy. A trucker delivering valuable goods, for example, might end up with no fuel, while a casual vacationing tourist from overseas who contributes less to the economy but happened to get in line first would be able to get fuel for her vehicle.

As a result, valuable goods go undelivered while a tourist gets to sight-see. Is the tradeoff worth it? Doubtful. Occasionally favouritism comes into play — a parasitic sibling of the station's owner who just lost his job might get priority over the more valuable truck. Or a black market might form, and it doesn't take a genius to realise that the black market invariably ends up with more deadweight loss than there would be under normal market conditions.

So, how does the gift economy factor this in? One of its key proponents (Natalinasmpf) argues the gift economy will be based on first come, first serve. But doesn't this mean that resources will be allocated inefficiently?

This could be helpful for the article, seeing as the criticisms section is literally non-existent. Johnleemk | Talk 11:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Principles like supply and demand are based on the giver's discernment, which is what gives it its humanitarian nature; for example, if I happened to mine some precious metals (or, with a group of people) I would be more likely to give it to a use that would benefit the whole community (off the top of my head, solar panels), than to say, make it for jewelry and give it to some random person I find. This way, my contribution will be put to the best use - which is my interest, since I want to be recognised by being the sponsor of the better benefit. In terms of this, the "highest bidder" is basically the thing judged to be the best need. Individuals do not of course know what the best place to put everything is, which is why there exists the community who would be constantly encouraging to allocate such resources to the best ability, just as you would encourage others to do the best thing. In this way, some principles of democracy are practiced. Why is the greatest benefit is the highest bidder? Well, that is the most visible and noticable effect to your peers is it not? Then given that therefore, it would be likely your choice given that you want to appear as constructive as possible. This does not prohibit the production of jewelry either, it just puts it in the back seat, as many of us would be willing to forgo jewelry for technology. If there's an individual who really really would like it, then the occasional time it happens (like the occasional time we buy jewelry for someone, or for yourself) it would render recognition to you - it depends on the situation, which is exactly again what gives a gift economy its humanitarian side - discernment of the giver, among a society of givers. -- Natalinasmpf 23:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, and while finding the above to be quite well written and well put (although, as a side note, jewelry often features prominently in gift economies), User:Natalinasmpf describes herself on her use page as a "politically active fifteen year old radical". I sincerely doubt that she is one of the "key proponents" of a gift economy. I presume that she does not characterize herself as such; I think User:Johnleemk is creating a bit of a straw man in making such a claim. Peter Kropotkin was a key proponents of a gift economy. More recently, maybe Lewis Hyde (drat, another article we still need) or Hakim Bey. There are others, but those leap to mind.

In the event that you were merely remarking that Natalinasmpf is an active proponent within the Wikipedian community of a gift economy, then, yes, I guess she is. But this talk page is not intended as a debating society. It is intended as a place to work on the article. And while Natalinasmpf may hold the view that a (presumably hypothetical, future) gift economy will be based on "first come, first serve", this is not an article about her views. I'm pretty familiar with the literature on gift economies, and I would say that this view is outside of the mainstream of that literature, so it's really not of much relevance to the article unless either (1) I am mistaken and Natalinasmpf actually is a significant writer on the subject in the world at large, not just in Wikipedia' or (2) someone can cite some authority on the subject who holds this view. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not even mention "first come first serve" in Wikipedia; that was a rough generalisation that I said on another forum (someone was making a light-hearted statement considering how prostitution would exist in a gift economy) of what would probably happen (conjecture); theoretically it is up to the giver's discernment, individual choice, which basically is a logical implication of the original argument (or even a tautology). -- Natalinasmpf 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reciprocation

Currently, the article has the following text pretty early: "Typically, this occurs in a cultural context where there is an expectation either of reciprocation—in the form of goods or services of comparable value, or of political support, general loyalty, honor to the giver, etc.—or of the gift being passed on in some other manner."

I strongly disagree with this view, and I believe that this is a major flaw in many pro-capitalist economists perception of gift economies. I'd rather have it further down, and rephrased as "Some economists think that this typically occurs in..."

Why? Because I (and others) believe that one of the things that are needed in contemporary western society is a strive to look outside the "measure-for-measure"-box of trade-based market economies and open our minds to new kinds of resource-distribution protocols.

The BitTorrent protocol (at it's lowest level) is an example of an economy that's neither a gift economy nor a pure trade-based economy -- the protocol is set up so you "give" as much as you can to the four who "give" you the most; regardless of the amount, and no "equal for equal"-ness is implied. It's not a pure gift economy, because you are getting something for something, but it's not a traditional market, either.

You don't have to agree with me, but the current phrasing is strongly POV. I'm planning to change this within a few days (if I remember to do so). Sunnan 17:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There's phrasings such as this ("As remarked above, in a typical gift economy, gift recipients are expected to give something in return,") throughout the article. That needs a bit of work and should be isolated to one or few sections. Sunnan 17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

All of this is easily found in the anthropological literature on traditional gift economies. The fact that the BitTorrent protocol may not conform to that model is neither here nor there. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mentioning BitTorrent as an "example" propably confused things, I'm sorry. Erase and rewind. I'm aware many traditional western economists and anthropologists do have this view of gift economies, and that view certainly needs to be presented as a view, but personally I consider this view extremely harmful. The point seems to be to present gift economies as a variety of trade economies. I personally consider that biased and unhelpful, most of the time, as there are strong differences between gift economies and trade economies. ESR based Homesteading the Noosphere on this argument but I think it's pointless. It's very typical of the pro-capitalist point-of-view -- a point-of-view I respect but it shouldn't be presented as gospel in an article that could be about alternatives to it. Sunnan 00:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Clearly a gift economy is very different from a trade economy, if only in that it tends to be in large measure about prestige, rather than goods. And the expectation that a gift will be "passed on" has no cognate in a trade economy. Both of these things make for a totally different pattern of movement of wealth.
    - Yes. This is what I wish to clarify. Sunnan 03:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. As for the rest of what you have to say, can you cite anyone who has studied gift economies and written to this effect, or are you just stating a personal opinion? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I'm aware of wikipedia's "No original research"-policy. So until I find verified third-party sources (should be possible, and I'm looking for that now) or get published myself, I won't add that stuff to the article itself. Sunnan 03:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  - - - However; as it stands, it's extremely pov: it's based on the premise that gift economies most of the time work on the expectation that you will get something back. I know many in the free software community who does not consciously think like that. Something-for-something is a trade economy, as opposed to a gift economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunnan (talk • contribs) 17 Nov 2005.
        
        Again, this is cited from Mauss and Hyde. If you have comparable citations for a different view, bring them to the picture. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I suspect much of the free software community are doing it with the expectation of getting something back, whether it is status, recognition, future jobs, the joy of design and creation, the use of the software itself, or enjoying sticking it to Microsoft, and perhaps forcing the lowering of Microsoft prices through competition. Team members get to use the results of each others efforts. Even corporations contribute software to open source and so are probably getting something in return, sometimes just good will, but more often free maintenance support from the community, or freedom from "responsibility" of officially supporting the software, while getting to use and distribute it.--Silverback 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        But then, there's giving as a philosophical end to itself. Anyway, the primary distinction is that reciprocation isn't explicit, but rather implicit, as opposed to other types of economies. -- Natalinasmpf 03:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        In Homesteading the Noosphere, ESR posits that explicit rewards (such as status, recognition, future jobs) are the prime motivator for free (open source) software developers; this position isn't shared by RMS, who've linked prominently to an excerpt of Alfie Kohn's No Contest (that book has an extensive literature list, BTW, I'll try to find time to look into it further). I don't consider the joy of design and creation, the use of the software itself, nor enjoying sticking it to Microsoft to be explicit rewards in a trade economy sense. Doing something for joy or for the use value (for self or others) is the opposite of doing something for the expected trade benefits. The trade/market economies are distinguished by having three separate "prices" -- market value, use value and production cost, where the first one is certainly artificial. Sunnan 08:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        If market value is in some sense "artificial", then production cost would be also, since those costs involve market prices. I can see your point about the trade benefits, however in the case of doing something for the "use value", if it is a group, community or team effort, it probably is being done for the trade value, in the sense that each person is only having to do a part of the task. If they had to do the whole task to get the software, that effort may be quite a bit more than the use value they would derive from their personal use, and they probably would be less likely to do it. So by offering their participation to induce others to participate, they are trading their individual portions of the effort. If these non-trade aspects you cite are examples of a gift economy, then it is clear that a gift economy is compatible with a market economy and people are free to choose what extent to participate in either.--Silverback 08:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        "a gift economy is compatible with a market economy" That's possible; either fully or to some extent. "people are free to choose what extent to participate in either." Only if they know about alternatives to trade-based market economies; currently I perceive a pro-capitalist hegemony in the world of economics. If all people hear about is rewards and trade and goals, and everything, even in gift economies, is turned into a quest for trade -- if for nothing but "reputation". (It's a false equation because reputation can't easily be traded away.) Sunnan 09:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        "Only if they know...", that is why freedom of speech is important. A gift economy has a much fairer chance in the US say, than is Communist China.--Silverback 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I believe that too. Sunnan 09:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I would say that is ironic, except the PRC isn't communist. ::ahem:: ;) -- Natalinasmpf 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        Personally, I think that gift economy ideas is fighting somewhat of an uphill battle in the US because of all the massive corporate propaganda we're constantly bombarded with. I don't like to talk about countries, though. We're all in it together. Sunnan 09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        Again, this article should not be primarily an article about imagined future replacement of existing national and global economies with a nationwide or worldwide gift economy. It should remain primarily a factual article about gift economies that have actually existed. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        That would be its emphasis, yes, but not necessarily near total omission. -- Natalinasmpf 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Trade based economies, of course, naturally have strong gift economy elements, because each party to a trade receives value in excess of what they are giving up. That is why each party to a transaction generally genuinely means the traditional "thankyou"'s that are exchanged.--Silverback 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a element of trade in general, not a gift. Trade tends to be confined to a single transaction between two parties, and the economy is a system of such transactions. In a gift economy the receiver does not have to reciprocate to the giver in order for both of them to benefit. -- Natalinasmpf 03:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How does the giver benefit without reciprocation? In a trade, the best traders get return business, not a "single transaction", and even build up a reputation that can be sold and is accounted for by the acquirer as "good will". "Good will" can, of course, be squandered by the acquirer, or built upon.--Silverback 07:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KDRGibby's criticism

As far as I know, I do not know of "microeconomists" who have specifically attacked the gift economy. They've attacked communism, and the wageless economy as described by Marxism but not the wageless economy as described by anarchist communism. This is a totally different context. Furthermore, economy of the Iroquois proves that it is workable. What do you mean it isn't? The gift economy is practiced within the context of family, betwen friends and all over the world. A pure gift economy may be different. What does KDRGibby mean that microeconomists argue against it? This is ridiculous. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Gift economy is just another name for altruistic economic arrangements that have been argued before. I thus provided a generalized criticism that addresses the points such an arrangement fails to take into account. There is no rational incentive that would suggest this system works.

If such an arrangement did work for Iroquois, I have never heard such a thing, but I dont doubt it was the result of coersion and threat which is the only way it can work beyond generating altruistic true believers for your society.

(Gibby 05:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Do actually see the link. It is not really "just another name", there are many implementations where it doesn't deal with anarchist communism per se. Evolutionary biology deals with it. Have you ever heard of symbiosis? Friendship and family have limited gift economies. The gift economy is implemented all over the world, in a mixed form of fashion. Well unless it's one of those horrible families where you have to be paid to do chores, rather than doing it out of filial piety. (I guess that's just an artifact of Western culture). Don't tell me you have to be paid in order to do stuff for your family? This phenomena is known as gift economics; don't tell me you study economics and don't know about this. Your criticism doesn't even address the existing incentives described by the article. I have already reworded the objections section into reasons that are self-admitted. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait, your suggesting that everyone will work as one big happy family? Do you realize how utterly stupid this sounds? Gift economies defy logic and rational thought. Transactions between family members cannot be conflated with transactions between total strangers.

How on earth are you going to build a pencil under your economic arrangement? How?

You have to get someone to cut trees, another person to cut that into lumber, another person to take the lumber and shape it, another person to mine tin, another to shape it, another to provide rubber, another to make the graphite, and someone to put it all together, oh and someone to ship it, and someone to sell it.

HOW DO YOU MAKE A PENCIL in your system? You cant because you've eliminated the very reason all these people get together to make the pencil. $$$$$$ (Gibby 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

But then again, capitalist culture encourages people to treat each other as strangers; communists do not. There are plenty of incentives to produce pencils. But again, let's start with the farmer, because agriculture is the basic foundation of the world economy (industrialised countries must trade with agricultural ones). After fulfilling his own subsistence, the farmer has excess. We know what happens in a market economy. However, the community also needs food. Suppose in a gift economy, the farmers readily supply the community with food, out of goodwill and altruism. Is he expecting a quid pro quo? Not at all, but reciprocal altruism will eventually guarantee him a long term incentive. With time, the lumber workers do not have to worry about subsistence, and freely provide lumber for the community in turn, when requested (hence, demand). Artisans are then perhaps ableto craft it into a horticultural facility. Originally, it may have high initial cost, but gift economics removes the growth cap, and increases the farmer's ability to produce, and thus create more food which may be given to the community, which the community takes advantage of to supply its other population into specialising into other trades which then feedback for the farmer (ie. free provision of agricultural science applications, without the need for patents). Originally, the farmer may not have been able to increase the means of production at all. The obstacle is to get everyone freely producing in the first place, ie. setting a foundation, but once it is in place then there exists incentive. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!)

Now you are getting silly. You cant even make a pencil, you expect people to act like family members and have no incentive to actually do so. You destroy work incentives by eliminating property, money, and wages, and you expect people to all behave altruistically and epxect nothing for what they contribute. This not only defies logic it defies rational thought. It is an impossible system to sustain beyond those few altruistic people who already believe in it...again, you can always use guns to get it to work. You won't be eliminating a growth cap, you'll be creating one. Your society will be backward and luddite. (Gibby 19:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Now for your farmer. The farmer needs tools, who creates them? The farmer needs seeds, who gives them to him? The farmer then will spend many days, weeks and months to grow food. He keeps alittle for himself but where is the incentive to take that food and bring it to town to give away? He will be more likely to produce just enough for himself if he is expected to give the rest away and expect nothing in return.

The people who were to make the farmers tools and give him seeds, why would they do that if they have to wait months to get something in return? Where is the reward for their labor. They arent likely going to produce much of anything.

Your system will break down very fast into a barter economy, especially with the outside world unless you have very dedicated altruistic people...and that is only a small minority of people. (Gibby 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

The pencil wasn't invented until the 16th century or so, which is why I started out with something simpler, to establish a foundation for the economy. Furthermore, there is more than one farmer. It is precisely because that first, there are food stores, and that secondly, the crops will take time to harvest that there is a certain degree of mutual insurance provided between the farmer and his community. Why would they wait months? It is likely to have to have stores (like is done so in any kind of economy, is it not?)

It will initially start with a small minority of people - that is the whole point, for a base culture. Then, people voluntarily join, with encouragement. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "questionable" for economy of Iroquois

I highly disagree with this. It's well known that the economy of the Iroquois was a gift economy (it's well referenced, check out its citations - it's a featured article.) It's also known wampum was used as a sort of trade, but it was only thought of as currency among the colonists, the Iroquois didn't actually use wampum as currency amongst themselves. To them, it was just another item. Please don't say it's "questionable". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

it is, many other encylopedias state that it was a medium of exchange, used in barter, and even bartered for. (Gibby 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Read the article. The colonists thought it was currency. The Iroquois didn't use it as currency amongst themselves, they just engaged in trade with the colonists. Initially, they didn't even see their transactions as trade, until the colonists became more exploitive and tensions broke out. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibby, the Iroquois used both gift-exchange and barter in trade. The article on the economy of the Iroquois provides citations for the existence of the Iroquois gift-economy. If you want to argue this please find something besides other encyclopedias' articles on wampum. Scholarly journal articles are usually considered better references than encyclopedias. Also, while you like to trump up logic, you use it very poorly. You take a theory (i.e. a gift economy wouldn't work) and then test against a case (i.e. Iroquois trade) and then conclude that the case is impossible. This is a perfect example of illogical thought.--Bkwillwm 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, bad assesment. I took the fact taht Iriquois engaged in barter and the definition of gift economy which defines istself as something "beyond" barter and monetary exchange. If git economies are not barter, and Iriquois used barter then the Iriquois did not do a gift economy (at the very least a gift economy alone as this article leads us to believe. Therefore the addition of "and barter economy" is the most accurate for now.)

A gift economy does not define itself, and others usually do not define it as "something 'beyond' barter and monetary exchange." A gift-economy is usually deined as a system where one gives goods with the expectation of reciprocity later on. Others see it as altruistic giving. Either way, the Iroquois are documented to have engaged in gift-giving as a mode of trade. Using barter as another form of trade does not preclude having a gift economy. Adding text about Iroquois bartering improves the article, but the parts about gift-giving are important (if not more important considering there is the referenced statement that the Iroquois used gift-giving more often).--Bkwillwm 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Iroquois economy was not a pure gift economy, just as our economy is not a pure market economy. They had some elements of trade and barter, especially outside the tribe or nation, just as we have some elements of gift, especially inside the family or community. I imagine that there are (or have been) economies primitive enough to have no element of market or barter, but what seems to me significant for this article is that there have been at least moderately large and sophisticated economies (the Iroquois, the traditional peoples of the Pacific Northwest, the Trobriand Islanders, for example ) that were predominantly gift economies, as ours is predominantly a market economy.

Gibby, I'm not really following what you are up to here. Are you basically saying that if we extrapolate from the theories of highly market-oriented economists, we can reasonably conclude that they would say that a large scale pure gift economy would fail? I think that is a true claim (even if an extrapolation) about the beliefs of, say, Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, but I'm not sure why it is supposed to be interesting or relevant to this article. Market economy, where there would presumably be plenty of space and reason to expound these theories is basically a stub. Given that market economies are certainly dominant in the world today, it seems kind of weird that you are expounding their views here rather than there. It's as if the discussion of the U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties were placed into the article on the CPUSA as critique. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That is some very poor logic. 1. There is a range of market economic theories ranging from free to social, though they share basic principles. Much like all your neatly named versions of communism. Each criticize the other on different grounds. These market principles are argued by people like Friedman to be the only way to make an economy function. If you elimiante the basic principles of the market you eliminate what makes an economy function. Therefore it is appropriate to generalize criticizms of any alternative to market economies because they will all fail in the same fashion...according to the market oriented theorists. 2. Comparing DP and RP on a CPUSA page is not even close to the same as using market oriented economics to criticizes a communist economic arrangement.

TRY AGAIN buddy. (Gibby 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

That is some very poor civility. Please note, when you start accusing everyone of having poor logic, then perhaps the person having poor logic is...nah, we won't go there. Generalized criticisms belong on generalized pages. Specific criticisms belong on specific pages, with cross-references in between. (ie. specific article is an example of general concept; specific criticism is part of general critique). That is why we have guidelines like Wikipedia:Summary. Please realise the nature of what a hyperlink is. Economics education you may have, but writing organisation skills you have not. It is appropriate to mention a generalized criticism of market economies indeed, but given that this is a web page, it's more appropriate to give a paragraph explaining the context, then linking to the generalised concept. You are also "begging the question" because you are using the argument of "this must be included because A is true. A is true because B is true." When people question the necessity of B, you say that B must be included because A is pressing. Way to go. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obstacles to a pure gift economy

I'm not sure what the section "Obstacles to a pure gift economy" is supposed to be about. A pure gift economy does seem unlikely, but so what? A pure market economy seems unimaginable: can you imagine if children were contractually required to pay back the costs of their rearing, if attending a dinner party meant you had to expect a bill for your meal, if no musician ever performed for the sheer joy of making music and entertaining people? If we abolished birthday presents, graduation presents, bridal showers, wedding presents; if lovers never gave gifts to emphasize their attachment to one another? If no one ever lent their lawnmower to a neighbor or kept an eye on their neighbor's child without charging for it? Even in our very market-oriented economy, gifts play a significant role, just as in any sophisticated gift economy that has actually existed, there is a significant role for markets and barter. In terms of the real world, a "pure gift economy" seems to me to be a straw man, as would a "pure market economy".

"Although no thinkers have yet specifically made criticisms against a pure gift economic implementation…" I disagree, although I don't have solid citations at hand. Many people have critiqued this idea, even (maybe especially) people who are rather opposed to markets. Parecon theorists Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel do not expect to handle the sophisticated needs of a modern society entirely through a system of gift-giving: they propose an elaborate system of social negotiation in place of the market. I suspect that if you are really looking for an intelligent, focused critique of a pure gift economy in a modern industrial culture, you would do better to look in the writings of anarchists and socialists—or monks, the Amish, etc.—who are sympathetic to the idea but see it as flawed than in the writings of those who have no sympathy for it. Conversely, many of the advocates of applying a gift economy to modern society oppose industrial modernism and the organization of sociaety into large units such as nations or states. Their reaction to someone saying "you can't run a New York or a London on a gift basis" would be "Indeed. New York and London are too big." I think one could probably find views to that effect, at least at times, in Paul Goodman.

As for the remarks on rational choice theory: as far as I can tell, rational choice theory has a very hard time accounting for altruism at all, especially altruism that risks or surrenders one's life (the soldier who throws himself on a hand grenade, or merely the person who jumps into a raging surf to try to save a stranger). It also has a very hard time accounting for why rioters would ever burn their own neighborhood or why (for example) so many people in the former Yugoslavia, educated Europeans all, engaged in lethal slaughter and communal violence for few material gains and at an enormous detriment to their collective well-being. This seems to me to be more of a critique of rational choice theory than of a gift economy.

The notion that human society is primarily driven by the desire for material gain is a very recent one in human history, and one that many (whether from a spiritual perspective or an idealistic leftist perspective—and the two are not mutually exclusive) would consider pathological. Again, many advocates of a gift economy would look at its lesser motivation for people "to produce, work, be efficient, or innovate" and view that as a positive. (BTW, on the "no way to calculate individuals' needs and wants" front: while not a gift economy, the Parecon folks have certainly done some interesting theoretical work on what non-market mechanisms for this might look like.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

oh my god that was the most unreasonable assessment of a free market economy i've ever seen...completely out of touch with reality. Try criticizing it on realistic grounds instead of making up strawmen about dinner parties, having children and making friends. My god... for one a free market economy would make no law against giving away anything for free, its called "FREE TO CHOOSE" theres even a book with the same title, I suggest you check it out.

Rational choice does a fine job explaining practically everything. Altruistic people value amenities. If your amenity value is honor jumping on a grenade may satisfy that amenity. Luckily for us we live in a semi free economic system where you dont have to be altruistic and thus dont have to sacrifise your life... In terms of warfare, again when you create a framework of restricted trade where you have policies that view economic wealth as a zero sum game as was done before WWI and WWII you create a framework that incentivizes warfare to produce greater wealth for your state. War is very rational the more power you give your central authority...

And no, the motivation of personal gain is as old as dirt itself...its only been in the last 200 years that achieving ones goals has begun to be available for all members of society rather than the most elite. (Gibby 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but that phenomena of giving away something for free, falls under the umbrella of gift economics, which attempts to explain why peopl edo so. Oversimplying altruisim to "amenities" is well, oversimplification. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, your system implies this is always the mode of transaction. YOu are conflating the issue. And no, amenities is exactly what it is called. Your entire society operates on pursuing amenity values all the time for every thing. Impossible!!!!! (Gibby 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, what on earth are you talking about when you say "your system", "your entire society"? As far as I know, all of us are living in what we could presumably agree to call advanced capitalist societies which approximate but do not perfectly reflect free market economies. I cannot speak for Natalinasmpf, who (if I take her user page at face value) lives in Singapore, but I gather that you and I both live in the U.S. And, no, I am not an Iroquois, and even if I were, I would not be living in a pre-contact Iroquois economy.

The point of this is not that there are no gift elements in "free market economies": of course there are! The point is that the study of market mechanisms does not explain the gift portion of economies, any more than the study of gift-patterns explains markets. The concept of a gift economy arose as a way to attempt to study transactions that are not well explained by market economics. Rational choice theory can presume (for example) the desire for affection, prestige, etc., but does nothing to explain them, and little to show the social patterns that develop from them. It certainly isn't going to explain (for example) why cross-cousins might have a different status from other cousins, or why kinship is seen as part of the definition of some communities, but not of others. The study of gift economies inevitably gets into issues of sociology in a much deeper way than the study of market economies.

It might be more precise to speak of the gift aspects and market aspects of an economy, and I'm sure there are people who do so (probably even people I've read, though it didn't leap out at me that they used these locutions) but much as we have an article entitled market economy, this is entitled gift economy. If we were to rename our articles as market aspects of an economy and gift aspects of an economy I suppose we would be more technically correct, but we would also be very obscure. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Our current system is closer to socialism than free market economics. What we have now is the "Third Way", a system that allows governments to pick winners and losers, protect elites, and sustain poverty. What we have is not even close to a free market...but it manages to function because we allow reasonably free prices and wages and private property.

Your system (aka socialism communism, gift economies, or parecon..whatever name you call it) eliminates the very reasons why societies have moved out of feudalism and improved the quality of life for many people.

Sociology is bull, its been abused to try and explain how communism can work...but the denial of rational behavior does not mean communism works. Economics explains alot more than sociologists would like to give it credit. Economics can explain love. Would you like me to put a price on love for you? (Gibby 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

KDRGibby has recently gone around adding large chunks of text of criticising any alternative to market economics and labelling them one and the same, ie. it's the same as planned economics, it's the same as Marxism/communism in a new form (despite the fact that implementations of communism in itself, never mind socialism or progressive reform varies widely with many different schools), etc. This has happened on participatory economics as well as cycle of poverty. I think that such generalised criticism against all market alternatives is not relevant in this article (it may be so in another article) and should be removed, as it is not concise nor does it deal with the point directly, and violates NPOV for undue weight (it's already on his biography, and we can link a paragraph about his views, and only for alternatives in general, not every alternative economy). I therefore think KDRGibby's recent additions should be removed. Please note that he has a current RFAr concerning his behaviour.Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's undue weight here. You should not have a defense of the supriority of markets as half of the article on Gift economy. The added market sections should be condensed and the whole of the text would make a great addition to the underdeveloped market economy article.--Bkwillwm 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I notice how KDRGibby likes to go around criticising specific systems and articles; isn't it better just to create a centralised area of information in the market economy articles, and especially the biographies, then adding mentions of such articles (and the links to the concept) at the appropriate times? I notice he doesn't edit his favourite authors' biographies that much. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me try this for you guys.

COMMUNIST THEORIES:

1 = Variable A causes exploitation must have XYZ
2 = Variable A causes exploitation must have XYW
3 = Variable A causes exploitation must have YZW

MARKET ORIENTED THEORIES

MUST HAVE A otherwise it doesnt work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Soapboxing

Let me try this for you too:

WINNING AN ARGUMENT:

COMMUNITY GUIDELINE:

meta:Don't be a dick

Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hows this, Nati you are going around posting the arbitration on peoples discussion pages, not just any people, any leftist that i've come in contact with. And thats not even the beginning of the crap you've pulled. If you want good faith, try being truthful and stop being such a big hypocrite. (Gibby 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

These were editors you came into conflict with, and posted on your talk page. Rhobite, AFAIK, isn't left-wing, neither is 172, nor many of the editors you antagonised. Telling them about a user they are having problems with, and that such a user has an arbitration case against them is not hypocrisy. I don't choose people based on leftist or not KDRGibby; I ask them to post evidence because they are witnesses to your behaviour. Perhaps if you made peace with more editors there would be less witnesses against you! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You've already messaged three different lefist editors that I have found in just 1 day, who knows what else you've done in the last 2 months. Its thus not hard to speculate you've called in admins to protect favored pages, to block my "reverts", and used other people with a similar economic prefrence to help you delete my material, all the while pretending to compromise with me and discuss when 9 times out of 10 you've never discussed anything when you made your deletions. (Gibby 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

As a matter of fact you rarely even argue against the merits of my additions you argue against me and when you are most frustrated by the merits of my posts who whine and bitch to admins, start discussion pages, and arbs to block me rather than argue against the merits of actual posts. Your too scared, too lazy, and too closed minded to defend your own beliefs on their own grounds you have to resort to eliminating your competition because you cant handle it yourself. PERIOD! You'll never survive in the rear world, I suggest getting a job in academia where you'll be insulated from intellectual competition. (Gibby 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Again, there is nothing wrong in messaging other editors to a problem. There is something wrong in messaging other editors to vote-stack, ie. vote in an afd, or for an requests for adminship, but not for a problem. Why don't you ask people to defend you? And AFAIK, I only messaged *one* leftist editor, I don't know Jmabel's economic standing or whatnot. Please stop blanket labelling.

I do argue about the merits of your additions; however, when I can't convince you otherwise, I'm asking for a third opinion (please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Perhaps I'm cowardly; but I am here to write a neutral, factually accurate encyclopedia, not within debates that do not help the writing process. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not here to write neutral, I've seen some of the crap you write, you write very pro communist especially anarcho communism or in heavy criticism of the market...and often without even directly attributing highly critical catch phrases to any specific author. You dont want neutral otherwise you wouldnt be constantly deleting additions citing Friedman Hayek, Lindsey, Reed or any other free market microeconomist every time they knock your beliefs down. Your a deletionist and you hate actual discussion, you'd rather use the strong arm of the wiki admin to do things for you than actually compromise and properly edit. (Gibby 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

For my two cents, I will very happily concede that Gibby knows more about economics than I do, but I must agree with Natalina, that instead of contributing large sums of data to various articles, you would do better to write a paragraph version and then link to a large article about Friedman or any other economist. An encyclopedia is not geared to have the same information strewn across many entries, it is geared to have concise entries on a subject with appropriate cross-references so that those willing to learn can look them up. Sadly, I've only seen (very tiresome) bantering back and forth between you two, and no resolution toward this end. Bo-Lingua 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

THat is a good point, but for now I see no reason why these sections should be deleted....For one basic reason: free market economists like Friedman believe that without prices, wages, private property (at the very least...and he's not even talking about free prices, free wages, and equal property rights) that you will not have a functioning economy at all. He believes that the more free prices and wages are and the more equal the property rights become the better the economy will function...but again, eliminating the market eliminates the economy...so he says. THerefore, any economic alternative to market economies gets the same criticism no matter what they call this new prescription and no matter how they go about attempting to replace markets with some new fangled market alternative, gifts or particpation, or bucaneer booty shares...doesnt matter. (Gibby 06:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Since you've already transferred that to the market economy article, I shall now trim and basically link back to that article. And what do you mean "at the very least"? Rights are the most basic thing first, and that's guaranteed by a pure gift economy. The rigidity which you go about the criticism is amazing. Again, just because there is a criticism which doesn't believe in the distinctions between the religious schools of thought (ie. athiesm), doesn't mean they post athiest criticism on every cleric's page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a fine comment there, and a small paragraph tailored to Gift economy with something of that end would be great; then link it to an article about Friedman so that those interested in more about Friedman himself can go there and read it. That way someone who's really only looking for Gift economy and not necessarily wanting the full depth can read that, digest it, and later go look at it. I'm not saying delete the sections, I'm saying prune them and link them to a more full article with possible sub-headings with specific arguments by Friedman or any other economist about the economic model in question. Bo-Lingua 06:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibby: Yes, but content policy and Wikipedia:Summary, as well as NPOV means that undue weight must not be given. There is a lot of undue Anti-Walmart weight on its article, and I think the solution is not to post "counter-rebuttals" but to move the criticisms of Wal-Mart to a new article or condense them. Similarly, whether an alternative to a market economy indeed is the "same prescription" is subjective, it cannot justify its own inclusion with begging the question. Why don't you update this on the market economy page, and write a paragraph that mentions this? For example, there are people who think Islam is fascist, against women's rights or whatever. This doesn't mean criticisms of Islam can be posted on every article about an Islamic cleric. Some people think that radical Muslims, moderate Muslims and liberal Muslims are all the same, just like you think all alternatives are all the same. But that's a contested view, so an existing view which itself is contested can't be used to justify the inclusion of another contested view. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder for you Nati:

"Gibby's interested in the history, philosophy, ideology, and economics behind liberalism in the United States and within International Relations. He is currently researching to discover ways on how liberalism can be worked to end poverty, promote social cooperation, as well as international cooperation with the hopes of world peace. Gibby also believes that capitalism, under the guidance of economic freedom, can be made to promote social equality, fairness, and justice."

Yes, but you have such poor faith in other editors or other people in terms of cooperation that I am left to wonder. I believe in property rights, and minimising the role of the state, preferably to a peer level as much as possible, but I don't believe in a culture of private property. But that is irrelevant, but you did bring it up, so I thought I would address you on this point. But you did remind me: there is really no reason for you to edit war if you supposedly espouse such ideals; the virtuous respond to non-tactile edits with goodwill, not eye for an eye and incivility. Why do you think making accusations about people's supposed inability to debate or whatever will improve the situation? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

um, the only thing I do is make small critical additions and then defend them against deletionists like yourself... (Gibby 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Deletionism isn't a vice. It's just a trend towards editing. It's a term used by metawiki culture...it basically means "quality over quantity" whereas inclusionism means "no harm including bad quality to be improved later" (linked with immediatism and eventualism but not directly correlated). In no way is it a politically (at least not in the factionalist sense) charged term; it does not suggest whitewashing or censorship et al like you accuse of. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh then we need a new word to define your deletion of perfectly good stuff just because you can't think of counter arguements against it. (Gibby 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

GIBBY! When will you get it through your head that she's not trying to delete everything you add! She's trying to get you to see that it's NOT good form to make every article a tribute to your favorite economists! She's asking you to write SMALL paragraphs, RELATED to the article, then LINK BACK to an article about your. When I look up Communism I don't want to wade through THREE PAGES OF WHY FRIEDMAN SAYS IT WON'T WORK. If I see a comment relating to Friedman, and it grabs my interest, I'll follow it to a main page. It's like putting a biography of Hitler in the middle of a World War II article! It's NOT THE PLACE FOR IT. Bo-Lingua 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, putting up the reasons why an economic system won't work in a section titled the criticism of said economic system...does make sense. Yeah... Oh and no she does delete everything I post and its not until I revert and argue with her for 2 weeks on the subject that she gives in and allows a small segment to stay... (Gibby 06:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Examples

Are pork barrel, Roman cliens-patronus systems ant the Bitchun society with its whuffie examples of gift economies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.84.184.125 (talk • contribs) 19 Feb 2006.

Pork really isn't an example of a gift economy: it's been described as bribing the people with their own money, but of course that doesn't account for the fact that powerful districts get the pork, and everyone pays. The main reason it is not a matter of gift economy is that the giving is not typically really voluntary on the part of the districts that are on the economic losing end. Also, it's emphatically zero-sum, which usually doesn't lend itself to a gift economy.

Roman clien-patronus system: basically yes, with some elements of barter.

And I have no comment on a work of fiction that I haven't read. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that whuffie was a form of measuring reputation or service to the community as a monetary unit, so it doesn't count as a gift economy. I haven't read the story either though. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many...?

How many of you really think this would work? (Gibby 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

You mean, like, how many of us believe that the Potlatch culture of the Pacific Northwest existed, or that academics who publish papers are rewarded mainly by prestige? Or how many of us think that an entire nation state could be run as an idealized, pure gift economy with no market or barter elements, based entirely on tradition, and without any sort of co-ordination? I would guess, on the former, anyone with a clue, and on the latter, probably nobody. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gift economies in the Pacific

I'm currently doing research on Pacific societies, and gift economies are/were very important in many parts of the Pacific. In some parts of the Pacific (for example the "outer islands" of the Cook Islands), a gift economy still exists. Also, it's seen by diasporic Pacific communities (for example Samoans, in New Zealand, Australia and the United States) as a fundamental way of retaining cultural identity; such communities still practice what you might call aspects of a gift economy amongst themselves, although obviously in relation to the host society they're caught up within a capitalist economy.
Anyway, I can't claim to be enough of an expert to add to the article itself, but maybe when I have a better grasp of this aspect of the topic... Aridd 21:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly expert myself, and I wrote the bulk of this. I read a couple of the key works on the topic, which I know from casual reading over the years are generally considered respected overviews, and I summarized and digested the key points of those works. This is pretty typical of how Wikipedia article get written. This is exactly one of the key advantages of the "no original research" policy: one does not need to be expert to write a good summary of someone else's work.

If you want to add to the article, just be careful to cite your sources. A few good examples of continuing traditional gift economies today and how they function would be a great addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. What I've added is only very basic, but I hope it at least gives a general idea of the topic. Aridd 13:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obstacles to a pure gift economy (new argument :) )

Shouldn't this section be more accurately described as "criticism of pure gift economy" or something similar? Obstacles implies they are factual rather than theoretical and thus represents a point of view. Donnacha 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/f/Talk%7EGift_economy_3577.html"

Category: Wikipedia as a media topic