Paul P. wrote:
Jim,
I think you are wrong on this. In my research on the economics of the
Pacific Northwest aboriginals, I found information indicating formal,
inter-community barter/trade....
shoot! I'm so seldom wrong. and this is the first time I've been wrong
all year...
I have to add an amendment to my brazen assertions. I wrote that
voluntary >>exchange between distinct communities does not work unless
the property rights of the two communities are protected. Some sort of
sovereign above the communities is needed. On the other hand, it's
quite possible that he was not referring to _pure_ exchange. That is,
it could be exchange mixed up with threatened robbery and/or war. Most
of the original merchants had armed caravans and sometimes engaged in
piracy.<<
amendment: it's possible for two communities to have voluntary trade
with each other if they living under a truce or an alliance (or a
confederation, like the Seneca etc.) The property rights have been
settled and then voluntary exchange is possible.
Also, the long distance, inter-'tribe' trade in oolichan oil,
obsidian, and many other items, ...
long-distance trade, on the other hand, was done by armed groups. It
always involved the threat of robbery.
--
Jim Devine / "Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the
world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it
is the farthest thing from it, because cynics don't learn anything.
Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world
because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -- Stephen
Colbert.
