Still, Adam Smith really did seem to believe barter was real. He writes, “When the division of labour first began to take place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very much clogged and embarrassed in its operations,” and then goes on to describe the inefficiencies of barter. And Beggs says that many textbooks sloppily seem to endorse this viewpoint. “They sort of use that fairy tale,” he explains.
Like in Venezuela, people are bartering for needs. The important things that are sought right now seem to be food and medicine. But at some point, people will be wanting a “taste” of their former life. They will want something that reminds them of the life they had. It could be as simple as a piece of chocolate or a nice new dress. The important thing here will be timing, security, and perception.
But in real-world scenarios, like in Venezuela, Greece, and Argentina, the fabric of society is still intact. Society hasn’t unraveled like it did for Selco in Bosnia. In those countries, people still go to work (if they have a job), go to school and life goes on, although it really sucks! In these cases, bartering will be a little easier, safer and more readily available as society is intact.
In his analysis of barter between coastal and inland villages in the Trobriand Islands, Keith Hart highlighted the difference between highly ceremonial gift exchange between community leaders, and the barter that occurs between individual households. The haggling that takes place between strangers is possible because of the larger temporary political order established by the gift exchanges of leaders. From this he concludes that barter is "an atomized interaction predicated upon the presence of society" (i.e. that social order established by gift exchange), and not typical between complete strangers.