"A market is a mechanism of exchange based on price determined by supply & demand"

Imagine a meeting of two hunter gatherers in an area relatively rich in obsidian. The first has some obsidian blades that are in good condition, the second could do with a new one. The second says what can I swap you for that blade? The first has a limited supply of blades and he knows some other people who could possibly also make use of the blades (maybe members of his own family). On the other hand he could also do with some fishing hooks, or alternatively a necklace made out of sea shells (let's say sea shells are very rare in this region). The second hunter is aware that obsidian is relatively common in this area. If this guy won't give him some obsidian, someone else most likely will. But the sea shells are rare and he probably won't come across them again soon. What to do? The two hunters if they decide to proceed with the swap, will likely figure out a fair exchange, depending how each considers the relative value of the items they could possibly swap.

Imagine a similar meeting of hunters in an area where sea shells are common and obsidian is rare. Surely the perception of value will be different in this area. A hunter who has a surplus of sea shells might not think twice about giving them up in exchange for some obsidian. There would be a price difference dependent on the supply and demand of those goods. That price is a necessary emergent property of that supply and demand - and thus natural.

These prehistoric hunters don't need to have read The Wealth of Nations in order to intuit where there own interest lie, and to perceive difference in value depending upon the circumstances.

Thus we can see there in this example there is still the principle of supply and demand which affects the price of these goods. And thus according to the definition you have provided there must have been "markets" even in hunter gatherer societies.

Sure this is not large scale trade compared with today. But it still must have existed (and would still exist in the few remaining primitive societies today). It would have been something that was common, and typical of humans and which would have occurred spontaneously (natural and normal).

Putin I can't figure out the point you are making. Have I said anything here you disagree with?

"It would have been something that was common, and typical of humans and which would have occurred spontaneously (natural and normal)."

You're extrapolating big time based on long distance trade of obsidian. First that the trade was conducted based on supply & demand - with greater amounts of commodities traded in exchange for obsidian where it was scarce - and second that it was normal & common for such kinds of exchanges to occur with other commodities.

Yes, it's very easy to imagine all of these hypothetical economics textbook hunter-gatherers who operate based on price, but it doesn't mean this is what happened let alone what was common. Especially considering obsidian was widely used as a material like flint for tool production even when it was relatively scarce. Considering the amount that flakes off when you're making tools it would hard to fathom why such a "valuable" material was used in such a way.

Nor can we rule out that obsidian was given in a gift exchange system, or delayed reciprocity in which obsidian was given as a gift and then some kind of gift was reciprocated at a later time, in order to retain social links with nearby groups or some other function that had nothing to do with price.

"Putin I can't figure out the point you are making"

I don't believe you, since you're clearly arguing that markets were natural, normal, and common in human societies from prehistoric times onward, which is precisely what I was disputing. I don't know why you continue to act as though you don't understand what I'm saying while continually responding to the argument.

Imagine two cell mates with Putin in a three-man cell in San Quentin. Putin is the commodity in the market place and the two-convicted felons enter into voluntary transaction to acquire the scare economic resource, Putin.

Do you understand how a market works now Putin?

This is not the first time you've thought a crude homophobic joke was funny. Your hate is not funny, it's sad.

Are you denying that this type of market exists and these don't occur everyday Putin. You are the homophobe by the way. There isn't anything unnatural or immoral about same sex intercourse.

That's why you make taunts like these against people are foolish enough to give you the time of day:

"Jack, where did you learn to suck cock the way you do?"

This was in the thread where you wanted to criminalize mental illness, because you're such a nice and kind person.

Sucking cock isn't in my post Putin, but if you having sucking cock on your mind that is your business, and who really cares? I certainly could care less if you suck cock.

Putin can't help bust mischaracterize positions he can't logically reply to. I remember a thread where I advocated warrantless searches of a subset, paranoid schizophrenics, of a subset, schizophrenics, of the mentally ill. In fact New York State has a law on the books called Kendra's law that subjects paranoid schizophrenics to involuntary institutionalization and involuntary prescription drug administration.
As usual Putin I expose you as a liar, but nothing new there.

Sorry about the blackberry mistypes.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1051400&page-thread=6#threadPager

See 2nd post on page 6.

Remember this the next 5,000 times Emac ever calls anyone a "liar".

If only Otzi could see and comprehend what a cluster of valueless argument some of his trinkets would cause here.

"I don't know why you continue to act as though you don't understand what I'm saying while continually responding to the argument."

To be more precise I don't see how what you are saying could conceivably be true. It doesn't make any sense.

Basically you are saying this (correct me if I am wrong): the principle of supply and demand with respect to price did not apply to to primitive societies (hunter gatherers for example).

I guess well need to talk to some hunter gatherers. Or find someone who has in order to verify this claim. I would find it intriguing if it were true.

The argument is broader than that. The argument is that states created markets, and that markets only came prevalent in the internal economies of countries relatively recently. For most of history human beings lived on a subsistence level and didn't produce enough to bother with markets. I don't see why this doesn't make sense. The data on population and GDP growth/agricultural production is there for all to see. Markets were given special locations and limited to certain days of the week. There is extensive economic anthropological work on this issue. The argument is an old one and goes under the heading of "substantivism".

I get what you are saying about the scale of trade. No argument from me there. People mostly lived on a subsistence level.

Let's take another look at our definition again. Could a meeting if two hunter gather groups to exchange items (obsidian, fish hooks, fur), or even just a one on one meeting be conceived as a market, assuming that there is some negotiation. Or does it have to be large scale - a designated market area where lots of traders meet.

Going back to my earlier example (and the question I raised in my last post). Do you claim the the principles of supply and demand are not applicable with respect to hunter gatherers? That scarcity items / desirability would play no part in the discussion between or two hunters? Or do you acknowledge that supply and demand does apply here.

Typo ... A meeting *of two hunter gatherer groups

I don't know to be honest. Maybe hunter gatherers didn't trade? Perhaps that level of cooperation between non-related groups had not yet developed.

Again Putin is a liar, None of my posts in this thread talked about sucking cock Putin, but thank you for showing was a totally lifeless and bitter individual you are searching all of my posts for the last months to find a cock reference.

You simply can't help but reveal your true self can you Putin.

Putin your argument is so broad it is meaningless. This is the point.

We know for a fact hunter gatherers traded brides and grooms. They lived in groups of 20-40, and they needed the genetic lines from neighboring tribes to prevent genetic abnormalities that would destroy them.
We have evidence of this because humans still live in hunter gatherer groups in the Amazon basin and Papua New Guinea. Interestingly when outsiders made contact with these groups one of the first things they wanted to do was trade. Not only did hunter gatherers trade they traded everything included their own kin and still do.

@Spyman

I'm not that sure about hunter-gatherer groups per se. As Emac says, that's a measure of sophistication more than a time frame. We do know that Cornish miners were trading their tin and gold to the European mainland well before there was an established market. The Nebra disc was made in Germany around 1,500BC with Cornish gold and tin.

"The disc helps to demonstrate that as early as 3,500 years ago - and perhaps even earlier - Bronze Age merchant sailors from Cornwall were trading the county's rich mineral resources with Continental Europeans." (http://gouk.about.com/od/thingstod1/ss/The-National-Maritime-Museum-Cornwall-A-Celebration-Of-Small-Boats-And-The-Sea_3.htm)

There is also evidence of extensive trading networks among Native Americans.

Merely being subsistence level doesn't rule out a bumper crop or a good season. In which case it makes perfect sense to trade away extra meat or grain in exchange for more permanent goods. Hunter-gatherers tend to be nomadic as well. I'm not sure where a gift with the expectation of a gift in return at a later date (which still seems a lot like trade) would be that compelling. No guarantee that you'll ever see the other tribe again.

Just reread my post. Sounds an awful lot like I think you disagree with me. That wasn't the intent, I agree that trade does seem like it would have been common among hunter-gatherers.

'I'm not sure where a gift with the expectation of a gift in return at a later date (which still seems a lot like trade)' - it is a lot like trade, but then again it isn't trade.

If you cook a meal for your friends, this is a gift in that you don't expect them to pay you - unlike the 'trade' in a restaurant. You might assume they will repay you in kind at some point, but that's not the point, you're mostly doing it to socialize.

The economics of hunter-gatherer groups bore a lot more similarity to anarchist collectives than free-market economics. I guess in this sense I am broadly agreeing with Putin.

so we're saying that somehow hunter-gatherer tribes are better then modern functioning stable capitalist democracy?

Hunter gatherer tribes simply engaged in free market trade. Their GDP growth rates sucked. I'm trying to find a link to a graph covering the years 10,000 BCE to 9,000 BCE now.