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.
For one thing, the barter myth “makes it possible to imagine a world that is nothing more than a series of cold-blooded calculations,” writes Graeber in Debt. This view is quite common now, even when behavioral economists have made a convincing case that humans are much more complicated—and less rational—than classical economic models would suggest.
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.
No, said Mises, for if taken back far enough, there comes a point at which money first emerges as a medium of exchange out of a pure barter economy Prior to this, it is valued only for its non-monetary uses as a commodity The demand for money is therefore pushed back to the last day of barter, where goods are traded only in direct exchange, and where the temporal element of the regression theorem ends It is in this way that all charges of circularity are obviated.
Business-to-business barter often includes merchandise or services in exchange for advertising. A company may supply promotional items or a service for a TV, radio station or newspaper, and in return receive a set amount of airtime or a certain number of print ads. Other examples include trading advice for goods, or trading merchandise or services for stock.
Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, sought to demonstrate that markets (and economies) pre-existed the state, and hence should be free of government regulation[citation needed]. He argued (against conventional wisdom) that money was not the creation of governments. Markets emerged, in his view, out of the division of labour, by which individuals began to specialize in specific crafts and hence had to depend on others for subsistence goods. These goods were first exchanged by barter. Specialization depended on trade, but was hindered by the "double coincidence of wants" which barter requires, i.e., for the exchange to occur, each participant must want what the other has. To complete this hypothetical history, craftsmen would stockpile one particular good, be it salt or metal, that they thought no one would refuse. This is the origin of money according to Smith. Money, as a universally desired medium of exchange, allows each half of the transaction to be separated.[3]
So as you consider items to stockpile, you should think about items that are necessary, but might not take up a lot of space.  Referring back to Mark Goodwin’s book mentioned above, one thing the main characters looked for were canning lids and rings.  They don’t take up a lot of space and in a real collapse situation, they will be really worth it!
Can you teach a skill like canning or cooking from scratch?  Food staples will be more readily available than the processed food many are used to buying at the grocery store and fast food.  And although many in the preparedness community know how to can and cook from scratch, your common everyday American doesn’t.  They wouldn’t know what to do with flour, eggs, and a little oil.