Volta e meia aprende-se qualquer coisa de jeito nos blogues

Ensinaram-nos que no princípio era a troca direta, depois veio o dinheiro para simplificar as relações comerciais e finalmente emergiu o crédito. Mas a evidência empírica recolhida por antropólogos e historiadores desmente essa narrativa: primeiro tivemos o crédito, depois o dinheiro e só no fim apareceu a troca direta. Tudo isto é muito bem explicadinho por David Graeber no seu Debt: The first 5,000 years.

Há dias, o autor resolveu responder no blogue Naked Capitalism a uma crítica de Robert Murphy, e o resultado foi um instrutivo post de que retirei os seguintes extratos:
The persistence of the barter myth is curious. It originally goes back to Adam Smith. Other elements of Smith’s argument have long since been abandoned by mainstream economists—the labor theory of value being only the most famous example. Why in this one case are there so many desperately trying to concoct imaginary times and places where something like this must have happened, despite the overwhelming evidence that it did not?

It seems to me because it goes back precisely to this notion of rationality that Adam Smith too embraced: that human beings are rational, calculating exchangers seeking material advantage, and that therefore it is possible to construct a scientific field that studies such behavior. The problem is that the real world seems to contradict this assumption at every turn. Thus we find that in actual villages, rather than thinking only about getting the best deal in swapping one material good for another with their neighbors, people are much more interested in who they love, who they hate, who they want to bail out of difficulties, who they want to embarrass and humiliate, etc.—not to mention the need to head off feuds.

Even when strangers met and barter did ensue, people often had a lot more on their minds than getting the largest possible number of arrowheads in exchange for the smallest number of shells. Let me end, then, by giving a couple examples from the book, of actual, documented cases of ‘primitive barter’—one of the occasional, one of the more established fixed-equivalent type.(...)

Economists always ask us to ‘imagine’ how things must have worked before the advent of money. What such examples bring home more than anything else is just how limited their imaginations really are. When one is dealing with a world unfamiliar with money and markets, even on those rare occasions when strangers did meet explicitly in order to exchange goods, they are rarely thinking exclusively about the value of the goods. This not only demonstrates that the Homo Oeconomicus which lies at the basis of all the theorems and equations that purports to render economics a science, is not only an almost impossibly boring person—basically, a monomaniacal sociopath who can wander through an orgy thinking only about marginal rates of return—but that what economists are basically doing in telling the myth of barter, is taking a kind of behavior that is only really possible after the invention of money and markets and then projecting it backwards as the purported reason for the invention of money and markets themselves. Logically, this makes about as much sense as saying that the game of chess was invented to allow people to fulfill a pre-existing desire to checkmate their opponent’s king.

* * *

At this point, it’s easier to understand why economists feel so defensive about challenges to the Myth of Barter, and why they keep telling the same old story even though most of them know it isn’t true. If what they are really describing is not how we ‘naturally’ behave but rather how we are taught to behave by the market—well who, nowadays, is doing most of the actual teaching? Primarily, economists. The question of barter cuts to the heart of not only what an economy is—most economists still insist that an economy is essentially a vast barter system, with money a mere tool (a position all the more peculiar now that the majority of economic transactions in the world have come to consist of playing around with money in one form or another) [10]—but also, the very status of economics: is it a science that describes of how humans actually behave, or prescriptive, a way of informing them how they should? (Remember, sciences generate hypothesis about the world that can be tested against the evidence and changed or abandoned if they don’t prove to predict what’s empirically there.)

Or is economics instead a technique of operating within a world that economists themselves have largely created? Or is it, as it appears for so many of the Austrians, a kind of faith, a revealed Truth embodied in the words of great prophets (such as Von Mises) who must, by definition be correct, and whose theories must be defended whatever empirical reality throws at them—even to the extent of generating imaginary unknown periods of history where something like what was originally described ‘must have’ taken place?

4 comentários:

António Parente disse...

Vou comprar o livro que indica. Parece-me interessante.

Em relação ao segundo link que colocou, tornou a dirigir-nos para o site da amazon e não para o blog que cita.

Já agora, se não for pedir muito, se colocasse na barra lateral do seu blog ums listagem dos blogs sobre economia que costuma ler (em inglês, conheço alguns em português e não fiquei fan) seria um serviço público muito bom. Pelo menos para mim.

Em relação à citação que colocou, acho-a muito interessante. Para reflectir.

Anónimo disse...

o segundo link devia ser este:


jj.amarante disse...

o link do "naked catitalism vai dar ao livro

João Pinto e Castro disse...

Obrigado, já corrigi o link.