"The best place to store your extra food is in your neighbor's belly." --African proverb

Now I’m pretty paranoid regarding overpopulation and depletion…, but isn’t returning to the barter system a little over the top??? Next there will be a story about a return to a hunter gathering societies. I do believe there is a pretty good chance this country, and many others, will collapse, but I just don’t see the return of the barter system or the gift system. Did Russia resort to the barter system when the FSU collapsed???

Just caught your tweet 3 minutes ago as it scrolled by along with 50 others per minute...

Well, of course a lot of OilDrum readers may be familiar with the "temporary gift economy" offered by the Burning Man festival in the Black Rock Desert. It's clearly not a pure gift economy since it costs a goodly chunk of money to get your entrance ticket.

But enough people come back from that environment energized and wanting to try and carry it out year-round that there's now a network of regional groups who carry out mini-burns all year round, even in the dead of winter like the one being held up in Michigan soon.

There's even a set of "Ten Principles" in Burningman regionals which guide people who are aiming for the spirit of a gifting subculture:
http://regionals.burningman.com/network_principles.html

Certainly of more interest now, with the demise of capitalism right at hand, is the search for not just temporary, but permanent, ongoing, sustainable alternative social arrangements. I'm glad you launched this discussion!

Bobby G
Central Wisc. USA
http://www.biodiversecity.com/

Nice post Gail,

my initial thought is: yes, great idea, but a gift economy could only ever work satisfactorily at a truly localized scale. Forget country-wide.

I've just finished watching the Sopranos again. Excellent entertainment. Everyone in the chain of command 'gifts' up some of their 'earnings' to their boss. Ultimately the Don gets the lions share - in return for providing a comfortable and 'protected' working environment.

Now, does that really differ from a country's tax system?

At some point in a gift economy there would have to be someone who is big and strong and respected who will make sure (by way of 'breaking balls') that everyone gifts their fair share. At the truly local level the stigma of not gifting will be automatic as others will see the person is not gifting.

Ultimately, there is nought different between the IRS and Tony Sopranos henchmen...

When I moved from the city to a small town (accessible only by sea or air) in 2005, the presence of a "gift economy" was one of the noticeable (and unexpected, as I had never experienced it before) differences. People here give stuff to each other and do things for each other as a matter of course, knowing that the favors will come back around, if not from the person you originally gave to, then from some other source. It's been interesting learning to let go of needing to know when some favor or gift will be returned, but to just do and give whenever I can and trust that it will come back to me. And it does... I come home to find that the rhubarb fairy has visited and there's a bag of rhubarb hanging on the front doorknob :)

Freecycle is one form of organised gift economy which needs a certain critical mass of people - several hundred - to work properly. In a small town, even on Freecycle, we recognise each other and know who is giving and who is getting. It works less well when the numbers involved get really high, people don't know each other even slightly, offers are snapped up too fast, and the number of people gaming the system for their own profit increases beyond tolerability.

Another thing, perhaps one of the best examples of a true gift economy is in the information sharing sphere - such as TOD. This is a free-access site, a lot of us (me included) have very little information to 'gift', others have much more. Perhaps information and knowledge is easier to gift than tangible items. Think open-source software...

Thanks Gail, great post!

A gift economy, what a concept, I have heard about it but never considered it as a broad economic system. If we flip this around and ask what type of group mindset beliefs would have to be in place for this to work we very likely would have the mindset belief system needed to make for a sustainable society.

The gift and barter system is not dead for those that live in a community that is active and has personal communication with each other .The value of goods is set by the need of the recipient not the market value this is where the Government gets it's feeling hurt on being get cut out of the loop or not get what it thinks it should get for the transaction .
Simply put not every body is a sales man/woman but on the other hand we all might learn pretty darn fast as we come from behind our computers ,cell phones and texting and try this barter in person what a thought talk to some one you don't know in person and make the deal.

Now this is a great post. Something that is very thought provoking, and can be very practical. I'd like to touch on a portion of the religious statements there and say that the book of Ruth in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), is wrapped around one of the Levitical Laws concerning gleaning. The (pre-Kingdom) Israelites were not to glean their fields so that the poor could maintain themselves in this manner. I was told by an elderly woman in my old church that in the 50's through the 60's many commercial farms in SoCal would tell the various churches around them when they were done supplying Heinz et al, that the could come glean.

>1. In what ways can we adopt more of a gift economy, if our current system deteriorates? A couple of examples I can think of include families >taking in elderly relatives and a laid off-worker moving in with friends.

I've seen people bring their excess garden vegetables to the church on Sunday and leave them outside the door for other people in the church to take them. And I'm leading a project at the church for the family's to do 4x4 square garden vegetables on the church's land to give to the Central PA food pantry this Summer.

2. It seems like for a gift economy to function well, there would need to be a fairly small number of participants in the economy, and the group would need to be tightly knit. Dunbar's Number represents a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. This is commonly cited to be about 150 people. Do readers have experience with whether gift economies can be made to work well with larger groups?

Churches were in the 200-500 range, though they were tightly knit, and stable.

3. It seems like a gift economy would be a whole lot easier to operate than a barter economy. Would that advantage be the reason gift economies, rather than barter economies, were so widely adopted historically?

They could also be used for discipline. The Mohawk and Iroquis Nations did not use physical means of discipline, they withheld gifts from their kids and other peoples.

4. Can anyone see ways that a gift economy could be adopted outside very small local groups? Would it make sense to try to do so?

I think there is one fairly large gift economy going on throughout the US: the freecycle networks. http://freecycle.org
The dimension it is missing is probably the interpersonal.

6. What ideas do you have for making a gift economy work, if only on a small scale?

Working on free food as above. I've done free energy in the past through firewood in other locations, and am thinking of resurrecting that here. I have heard some talk of "solar raising" (like barn raising), where the homeowner buys the equipment, and 5-6 people show up to install it on a Saturday. This is easier to do in the 1200 watt range by two people who simply want a backup teotwaki system for under $6k
without grid tie and such.

If we look back at our own history, many things occurred through the gift economy and still do. My great grandparents lived part of the time with my grandparents and help care for my father and his siblings. This wasn't unusual until around the 1950's. The nuclear family as a standard practice isn't as old as most people in the developed world think it is and many sociologists have considered it only a matter of time before the nuclear family is in the minority again. IMO, I think we will see this happen in the next couple of years as with another stock market crash when oil goes back up. Many individuals wouldn’t have enough left to retire on and as the adult children can't necessarily get jobs nor be able to pay for child care the decision to live in extended families will make sense. Grandparents passing onto the grandkids knowledge the way it use to happen sounds like a good thing for everyone.

As kevinw1 mentions, it still exists in more rural areas. After all, if you have a problem or need help you had better get along well with the neighbours and have developed some reciprocity with them. Otherwise, well, life could be pretty miserable, difficult and frustrating. At times it could be a difference between life and death. Therefore, rather than being easier than a barter economy, I am wondering if it is more being the mother of necessity to create reciprocity within your group vs. barter.

I can't see larger groups than 500 being able to achieve the gifting system. Many villages and towns were around this size and able to do so. There are also schools and churches of this size today that are able to do the gift system. However, there tend to be close knit communities that actively work on knowing each other instead of impersonal places. At it's very bases it requires knowing the other members of the group, and trusting that it will be reciprocated at some point. I would think common values and practices probably play a large role as well.

As saddlebear points out, there almost always was some form of currency. What really varied was the % of currency (and its value) vs. gifting. I doubt we will see currency completely disappear as this makes it to difficult to obtain necessary goods that aren't in you area or a close neighbours (the break down of the gifting system when you don’t know the individuals and they aren’t part of your group).

Interesting question about Cuba. I am wondering if this works in Cuba because chances are the drive knows the passenger that he would pick up or at least the majority of the time. Also, I don't think Cubans are as well armed as Americans or even Canadians. I can see this working in rural areas but definitely not in the cities for security reasons particularly for females. For such a law to be created here, things would have had to have gotten pretty bad. Even if there was a reasonably functioning law, security issues and crime rates would rise making it potentially a bad risk each time you picked up someone or were picked up.

The beauty of a gift economy is that -- even in today's tax-starved environment (US) -- it is tax free and thus one way to develop an off-grid economy in a community that truly maintains the fruit of its labors.

Years ago my mother told me a story about an odd occurrence with an IRS agent. She had a friend with a hair salon, and my mother had a background as a bookkeeper (although she was not an accountant or tax expert). So my mom helped out her friend by keeping the books for her salon. The business was audited, and my mom was reviewing the books with the IRS agent. The auditor noticed that there was not an expense for bookkeeping services, so the auditor proceeded over the course of several minutes to ask my mom numerous times, and in numerous ways, why she was helping her friend with her accounting.

My mom simply (and honestly) answered that she was helping her friend. She was initially puzzled as to why she was being grilled over such a simple issue.

As it turns out, my mom's friend did occasionally cut her hair for her -- but my mom viewed those two acts as just two friend helping each other. It was not barter, nor quid pro quo.

Thanks to my mother's integrity and consistency, both of them were spared further indignity at the hands of the IRS. My mother later learned that a barter exchange does in fact create a tax liability on both parties -- so one is expected to declare the value of apples given for chickens received, and both parties must report that value as income.

[Interesting how it's still called "income" when an exchange has taken place -- in fact, it's not "income", it's "revenue" -- you gave up the chickens for the apples, or your (irreplaceable) time for a wage. There is no profit, or "net income". But that's another discussion.]

Moral of the story: pay it forward.

I think size is crucial, because trust is essential.
Probably two to three hundred will be the maximum size for a community to know each other well enough to trust each other. The smaller the group, the tighter the knit.

You do not only need to trust each other to share your windfalls, and maybe more, you also need to count on each other in danger.

A small church or temple or mosque community is a very good format: People can share beliefs as well as festivals and services and produce.

I do not believe gods exist, except in our minds, but I am becoming sorely tempted to join a congenial parsonage or ulema. Catholic ritual I am familiar with, and I find it quite beautiful, but I strongly dislike the hierarchy, the shepherd and flock mentality. Islam has a lot to say for it, but I would have to join by uttering a lie, and then I like communities where women are strong. There aren't enough buddhists around me to be any use.

Hard, but still a good plan. I am now officially on the lookout for a congenial religious community. I promise to follow tradition and rituals faithfully, but I beg to remain skeptic about gods and miracles.

On number 5 - ride sharing - you'd have to go back only as far as WWII during gas rationing to find a very popular and successful ride sharing program in the US. I don't have any good reference to point to, but have heard anecdotally that "hitchhiking" and picking up hitchhikers was officially encouraged, considered a duty of patriotism during the war, and worked well all across the country.

Did somebody say presents?

I like presents.

The ideas expressed in this article are contrary to human nature. While it is undoubtedly noble and indeed sustainable to get people to give more than they receive, and to sacrifice for others, what really distinguishes this from the economic facet of communism? The selfish motive is far, far more powerful than the selfless motive, especially at a time when resources will become scarcer and competition fiercer as the population grows. Furthermore, with overpopulation becoming worse over time, there will be a far greater number of people who act as a drag on civilization, and for whom sacrifice is pointless.

The "gift economy," like energy from fusion, is decades or perhaps centuries away, when the earth has been sufficiently impoverished of its easily accessible resources. For the time being, we are headed into another period of "survival of the fittest." Hopefully the best of humanity will survive and the remainder will die off. Until the population has been vastly reduced, there is no real sense in reinventing the economy.

I really think it's highly unlikely the current financial system is going to fail. Change always means disruption. The fact that there are winners and losers doesn't mean we can logically extrapolate to a barter economy, or an every man for himself free for all.

When animals were replaced by cars, it must have seemed like the end of the world to buggy whip makers and blacksmiths. They re-absorbed into other areas of the economy. It took time and effort. As will the transition to more expensive oil and tighter credit. Ultimately the new equilibrium will become more efficient, but on the way some people will be hurt.

The best thing you can do for yourself is earn and save as much money as you can in the way you know best. For anyone who is not already an experienced farmer, this will give you a far greater return than bartering or going back to nature. If you have concerns about dollar devaluation, there are easy and inexpensive ways to diversify into other currencies including precious metals.

Gift economies are not so unusual. People particularly friends and family give and do favours for each other all the time without necessarily expecting things in return its like good will. So its not like we do not do these things already but I do think we could do it more explicitly. If the idea of the Gift Economy was better known then maybe when doing something for a friend you could give the nod knowing that your friend will pass on the gift, understanding that what goes around comes around. I dont expect anyone thinks this ad-hoc practice would really replace the exchange economy.
However there are already much more highly developed gift economies at work right here right now in the culture of sharing that the internet as a technology has facilitated. In this immaterial sphere of bits and bytes alternative licenses to the all rights reserved model of conventional copyright such as the GPL Free Software License and the Creative Commons Licence actively promote the free sharing and collaborative development of software tools, knowledge(wikipedia)and media. Our greatest collective asset is our minds. We can share and pass on knowledge and it costs us next to nothing.
How can this translate to the material sphere? This to is already happening. Chris Anderson just wrote an article for Wired magazine on Open Source design for Open Manufacturing http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution/ . Why not open shareable design for sustainability see - http://www.appropedia.org a wiki for appropriate technology or Factor E Farm - who are developing a global village construction set - http://factorefarm.org/ - There are examples of the gifting spirit everywhere see the Open Everything Mindmap at - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-everything-mindmap-and-visualization/...
Also see http://fcforum.net/ for the Charter for Innovation, Creativity and Access to Knowledge for Citizens’ and artists’ Human Rights in the digital age. I find this whole movement quite inspiring.

ok Im done

Best

K

@ lukitas -- i think the content of your belief system is not as important as the power of community in a religious or cultural group. I belong to an Episcopal (Anglican) church community but don't feel as if I'm really one of the "true believers". I have recently discovered a local group of Alcoholics Anonymous that resembles the "gift economy" we are discussing, and A.A. doesn't require you to profess belief in any particular deity (although it does suggest that you try to derive strength from some sort of power greater than yourself). There is definitely a spirituality and a giving community within A.A. groups, and they come in different sizes, so you can choose one that's not too big and not too small. But my experience doesn't help you much if you're not a recovering alcoholic, as I am.

superb,very very thought provoking post gail. i hope to respond tomorrow.

A pity when people rely on Wikipedia for anything connected with accurate information on societal issues http://www.archive.org/details/WhoControlsWikipediaPriceSystemAnalysis
It is a really poor source generally for information. Wikipedia's economics and energy articles are particularly bad and controlled by mainstream cliques through foundation money funding.

Gift economy is a throw back to low energy conversion and scarcity based societies.
As far as a meaningful alternative, energy accounting keeps track of resources in a given area (technate) and measures those against population demand and ecology. This system was proposed in 1934 by M. King Hubbert and Howard Scott http://mkinghubbert-technocracy.blogspot.com/

Energy accounting, takes the place of religious or political control i.e. contract society based on abstract thought more connected with class/caste, because it is a science based method, secular and non partisan.
As in the Technocracy Study Course ... it is a non market economic system.
Wilton Ivie .. well known biologist and member of Technocracy Incorporated was very articulate as an essay writer on this subject of being a consumer in a science based society http://web.archive.org/web/20010514113821/www.technocracyinc.org/pamphle... with that as a 'right of citizenship' and not at the whim of charity of politicians or religious people.
The old Ecclesiastic approach may have made some sense in its time and place of flat lined energy production and human labor and handicraft society... now it is just an antique throwback though.. and just another method that a class system is maintained based on old scarcity principles http://www.technocracytechnate.org/ more info on energy economics.

My first reaction is that gift economies are just as exploitative of natural capital as capitalistic economies. In a capitalistic economy, status is afforded by the quantity of embodied natural capital that a member can accumulate. In contrast, in a gift economy, status is afforded by the quantity of embodied natural capital that a member can distribute. The key problem - the competitive exploitation of natural capital - is equally present. I understand that many people have a visceral reaction against selfishness which pervades intersocial relations in modern capitalistic society, but that is tangential to the overshoot dilemma. Capitalist and gift economies are equally greedy in relation to their exploitation of our collective endowment of natural capital.

Since my wife and I were starving on $154/month when I was in the USMC, we have given 10-20% of our gross income to various charitable organizations. Additionally, it is not unusual to have five families in my blueberry patch multiple times each year and I deliver asparagus and wave petunia plants to older neighbors in the early spring. I also freely lend truck, tractor, and other tools to my neighbors.

However, I plan to alter (temporarily stop all giving) my giving as we experience increasing negative impacts from peak oil. I have a finite amount of resources and even less to give. If I meet today’s needs of my neighbor ($356 electric bill, $165 water bill, rent, car payment. etc), he has no incentive to make lifestyle changes. The family will retain the three cell phones, satellite TV, $900/mo SUV payment, etc. I am frequently faced with these situations because our county unemployment is 14.5%. If I meet these needs now, I will be wasting those finite resources and soon have nothing left to give.

Eventually, that neighbor will be forced to relinquish many of his toys and adjust to a meager table. Because of peak oil he will soon be hungry and every dollar or item given will be used for bare essentials. Hopefully, because I am peak oil aware, thanks to TOD, I will have resources to give after circumstances have forced us into a survival level lifestyle.

I believe that my local extended family of 17 will survive only if we can maintain a majority of our local community. Accordingly, all my planning and preparation includes this concept. Of course the greater my success getting them on board the easier the maintenance task. I use the Grange, local radio talk program, local newspaper letters to the editor, and a monthly Peak Oil/ Economic Analysis letter to alert the community to the future as I see it. I am seeing good results from these efforts, especially as unemployment has reached 14.5% and is increasing.

Gift giving is an important part of family dynamics, IMO, and should be extended to friends and close communities. When Jesus advocated giving the extra coat away, it was probably to someone you were familiar with and how could a decent person see a neighbour shiver in the cold without helping?

In larger groups you would not know if the person was in fact needy or if they were going to sell your gift for profit!

How would you alter the concept that gifts are meant to be kept and treasured, even when you dont actually like or need the gift? My mother has many items that she wont part with just because someone gave it to her.

I'm going to make an extremely insulting comment. I apologize in advance.

You cannot anthropologically look at "gift economies" without also recognizing that they were also often sexually promiscuous. Meaning, frankly, the "no money, no honey" rule didn't apply there. The sexual act is not looked at something that must be compensated for by pay--ie, it also is a gift. Nor does the "no money, no honey" rule apply with bonobos, nor much even with chimps. However, that rule does indeed apply in our culture. I. Since "status" is gained in our troop by wealth as defined by hording, not character or integrity or gift giving, and status is useful primarily for mate gathering--well, we have a real problem. . .

And that's as polite as I can put it. No, I'm not a bitter single guy. Actually my chicky poo is a retired model, and like a lot of strong attractive women is on her way to being one of the biggest misogynists I've ever met. Bless her heart--she's living in the rainforest jungle in Hawaii, and that's about as far as one can get from the cat walks in New York City.

We live in a culture where women make upwards of 70 percent of all purchasing decisions and a ideal hip to waist ratio is a better predictor of financial success than a Phd.

Well, that's as nice as I can put it.

Why does this sound like a scheme to avoid paying taxes?
The government needs tax revenue to do things. No revenue, no government.
If anything the government should be better financed to help mitigate Peak Oil.
Instead the government became broke handing out tax cuts.

Gift economies are part of the system of economics known as distributism - another word for gift economies is gratuitousness. This notion extends further than it is being used here - simplifying - it means that in a profit making business the gift giving is the gift of recognizing that the business is there not just for profit but also to benefit the community - the gift being economic behavior that is not just profit driven but driven by doing good for the community. Profit is not the sole purpose of a business - profit is a means to an end - the end being the betterment of the community.

In Bendict's recent encyclical he discusses this gift economy more fully.

Gail - I cannot urge you enough to look into distributism - for a PO'er - this is the way between capitalism and socialism. There is a good site explaining more - distributist review.

Thank you for a very thought provoking blog. I carried out cultural research among Inupiaq Eskimo and Athabascan Indians in northern Alaska documenting their traditional subsistence lifestyles. You are right in re: to the role of gift giving in subsistence economies. A successful hunter gains status within his group or community by giving others gifts of what he takes from the land. Each gift helps to cement ties of reciprocal obligations with those receiving the gifts. This in turn sets up a cycle of giving within the group. Bartering or outright sale of meat, skins or other items usually was limited to exchanges with a village trading post or distant purchaser. Elderly Eskimo and Indian informants told me of how they would barter with one another before Europeans became a major presence in the North. It was a carefully prescribed procedure often with an undertone of suspicion and even suppressed aggression. Gifts, on the other hand, elicited a bond of friendship and trust.

Gift economies were absolutly essential for the working of society in pre christian Europe. It is also the basis for sacrifice. You gift a god in return for a good harvest etc. They found an ornate cetic shortsword that had been thrown off a bridge in Britain that was so valuable that in todays terms it would be the equivilent of driving a new porch into the water.

The gift economy is very active within my immediate community. I help out with physical work that others, like the older men, cant do. I hand out bottles of home made mead and any excess produce from my garden on a regular basis to people as well.

In return I receive presents for my kids, I get help with learning Dutch and get envited out to social events etc.

Good post Gail.

Where we live in SW MO - out in the country, this kind of "economy" is called "Being a Neighbor". It exists right alongside barter and capitalism.

The same fellow who bales my hay for a half share, last month brought me some milk replacer he bought at auction and he is who I buy with (FRNs) my feeder pigs from as well.

I do some outside chores for another neighbor in trade for his bull (dairy) calves and also volunteer to run his hay rake or help repair a tractor gratis. He in turn might do some work at my place with his equipment, planting for example but I've also done several little remodel jobs on his house for cash money.

When I think about it I never hear anyone grumbling about "helping out" a neighbor, the carping usually is about so-and-so not paying or dragging their heels regarding a cash debt or some such complaint about monetary transactions.

It requires a certain level of trust and understanding, but I've done favors for friends and bought drinks and so on with no immediate quid pro quo. It all comes back, anyway. In these societies, you're usually talking about pretty tight-knit social groups: tribal or clannal affiliations, small communities, and the like. It can't work on a larger, more anonymous scale, without immediate quid pro quo. But for a small group, of course.

as i said superb post gail

i've not thought about this much so this is sort of my stream of doing such.

i'm within a couple of hundred yards radius of 6 or so households- semi-rural.. kinda rugged area.

as i think of what has been exchanged with our neighbors [not a lot actually over the 10 yrs. we've been here] those we have related to some we have also gifted/exchanged with some, & most has been via gift economy.

some examples;

we are close to an elderly couple. our first relating was them offering me wood as he saw me scrounging a meager brushpile on our fence line. we have never exchanged dollars except to directly pay for something purchased/picked up for one another. we have probably gifted probably in dollars a 1000 counting both sides. what i notice as i think thru this is we pay attention to one another's needs/desires, & offer/gift with that as our focus.... not money; which feels caring. btw feels a little icky to 'account' with dollars equivalent. in fact i have dreaded the possibility- this came up once- of a 'sale' of an item between us. in fact i think i learned from my father not to get into large deals/trades with neighbors whenever possible. if u can't make it a gift it might be too big to 'gift/exchange.

i also feel i owe one neighbor whose mailbox i damaged this fall & he fixed it before i got back from a trip. we don't relate much-furtherest away- & i will be offering some tractor work- the 2nd time, or other work.

another neighbor & i have worked together some but i feel some tension re our gifts/exchange. our first exchange wasn't a gift but a offer to sell, & i purchased an implement. i have corrected this for me by clearly being vulnerable dollarwise in a 'trade' where there is no specifics quantity-wise of what is 'owed' me & what was offered is stored at his/their place. he has many skills & tools etc. & is a very valuable asset though tension has been present at times. the way i look at this also is with close by neighbors & being somewhat isolated, & expecting very bad times[actually even if we didn't] it is more important than several 100 dollars to at least be on civil terms. that sounds kinda one down; but in actuality we are all subject to the good & bad of each other when closeby physically-- not unlike family or a marriage.

i want to say more re dunbar's no., our wiring, antisocial traits, tragedy of the commons, etc. but gotta go clean the chimney--it's still winter.

your post has been one that has been very helpful on a feeling level for me, as well as the typical TOD thinking/intellect plane. thanks.

How about this type of non market economic approach which does not depend on 'giving' or charity in any way, and elevates it to a 'right of citizenship as to consuming ability http://www.technocracy.org/component/content/article/71-archives/285-ivie
Energy accounting would eliminate all the antique concepts of barter, money, or gifting for the basics of life etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6UX1crhRXI

Being dependent on the whims of neighbors does not sound like a great idea.

Gail writes:

I understand that in Cuba, a law was passed that if you had extra room in your vehicle, you were required to pick up people needing rides, if they were standing in designated ride-sharing locations. Do you think the USA could get to this point of sharing?

[emphasis mine]

Gail, if you are required to give something, then it's not a gift. So the question you put should read:

"Do you think the USA could get to this point of coercion?"

Excellent posting, Gail.
This goes well in line with my experiences in India or Africa: When I backpack-travelled there I was invited several times by people (mostly about my age) to chat with them, have some tea, food or even stay with the family for a while. They were very amiable, but eventually it could happen that someone (of their friends) asked me if I could give him some money.
This sounds somewhat amiable for a westerner, but later I learned that this is a normal way of social balancing among those who have more or less. In a way this is a more direct and personal way of social insurance.

One of the 10 principles of Burning Man is a gift economy.
http://www.burningman.com/whatisburningman/about_burningman/principles.html
The population is shrinking, but I think the highest was 50,000 participants. That's a lot of gifting! Granted, Burning Man is a short term, temporary but repeating event (1 week) and completely not sustainable, but you asked for examples...!

As no one else has posted on the formalized efforts like timebanking I will.

http://www.timebanks.org

software to run your timebank
http://community.timebanks.org/
http://project.cyclos.org/

http://www.familyservicerochester.org/timetrader.html
(the time trader ppl arrange a conference call and have a new "Member-led Guide, containing the "Nuts and Bolts on
getting a community group up and running" released by Tony Budak in case running a timebank is a road one wants to travel.)

The UXA and EPIC movement
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/sinclair.html
http://red-coral.net/UXA_Article.html

Gift enconomies can only function in homogeneous societies where the rules of exchange are established. One can see the problems of cultures clashing ideas of property and ownership every day in countries where there are large immigrant populations. An international gift economy would require an extensive set of shared values, which is something only time and lots of contact can bring.

I think you could extend the 'family' concept to small groups of close friends and family reasonably easily. In fact, among my close friends and family that sort of gift economy already works, and it acts to draw us together and cement the emotional ties we have to one another.

The difficulty is extending that to larger groups. Would it be possible to have a gift economy function between small groups rather than between individuals within different groups? If there were prestige associated with giving, and the small groups could form a group identity (as many families do, and as clans and tribes have done in the past) and share in the prestige of that group identity, I think it could work.

In fact it might be possible to use that same prestige to cut down on inter-group conflict by using sports and competitive activities as an outlet for competitive urges without diminishing the bonds between groups that lead to a functioning gift economy.

Apartheid policy, surrounded by economic distressed larger community is plight of this economically and socially isolated community I visit from time to time. People relocated by government policy from urban welfare to rural welfare. Yearning for the good life yet trapped by addiction to alcohol and worse. Tempered by assumption their welfare support is due to them by government yet local government takes care of its own first. People have been murdered over competition for minimum wage jobs and families have multi-generation feuds.

A picture of a dysfunctional community in present day that may be a microcosm for what we will be facing. People have skills, they are industrious and desire for scale wages, and the good things it buys. But this is holding them back from doing anything. An outsider (me) views all this and has audacity to ask a respected community elder to consider http://www.timebanks.org/ time banking as a way to mitigate this impasse thrust upon these people. A computer program that serves as a registry for and accounting of time dollars to give people sitting at home a way to make their local world work better and to sustain themselves.

I feel arrogant to propose this as I have job and things to do with my money. Yet, I am worried about myself and this solution is the only one that seems to make sense even for myself as eventually this will be happening in my home community too.

Solutions scaled to a dysfunctional future is what we need to explore.

What ideas do you have for making a gift economy work, if only on a small scale?

I think the key is trust that "what goes around comes around" and willingness to give without expectations.

Two examples from my life over the past few days:
- we have some extra furniture (including a nice oak table, a bed, a sofa): rather than sell these, we offered them to community members who have less than us.
- we have been arranging some transport, and had some extra space. We knew of some people needing to move stuff as well, and offered to let them include their stuff for free.

I have found that people want to do/give something in return. When you know people, they don't really want to receive gifts "for free" (nobody wants to be a charity case, except maybe on their birthday). Receiving a gift makes them feel good, and either immediately or later they are offering something in return (e.g. in our case, help with the move).

Besides, giving is much more fun than bartering.

Perhaps one outcome of a monetary exchange system is that the reduction of trade to just the "price point" (the intersection of supply and demand curves) severs the non-monetary elements of trade so that we end up with "producers" and "consumers" instead of citizens engaged with other citizens.

I feel it is possible to extend a gift economy to the whole humanity.
It's all a matter of consciousness and experience of self.

When consciousness remains at levels associated with survival and when pleasure comes from material gratification and personnal power, a gift economy is not possible because the people will have a tendancy for fighting and controling through ownership.

When consciousness expands and embraces higher realms of existence in which the experience of self is expanded to include family, tribe, nation, race, nature, animals and pleasure is experienced primarily through Love, Co-Creation and Communion, then giving becomes natural because it is giving to another part of self.

Status through giving changes nothing if the individual is attaching to status... True giving happens when the feeling of separation melts, not when one is craving status.

A contracted state leads you to frustration that will seek pleasure outside of self. In this state you will need means of securing future gratifications but this is only possible if you choose control and power.

A relaxed state leads you to find a source of infinite pleasure and energy at the center of your consciousness and leads you to an ever wider expansion of your experience of self. Control and power become meaningless because your only aspiration is to share the love and joy that shines from your center.

Of course between two extremes there is a rainbow of colors that compose today's humanity. But it seems clearer to me each day that the next battle will not be won by the contracted people through their control and power but it is now time for the love and the light shining from the center to win.

The question is not : do we have to choose a gift economy or a barter economy but : what state do we want to live in ? A state of communion with Existence through which we learn to see and FEEL all life as Self or a state of contraction in which we have to fight for survival and ephemeral gratifications ? It is the consciousness level of human beings and not logic that will lead to a choice of economy.

If we choose communion, it will feel natural to give our gift to the world, it will flow effortlesly and no articifical incentive will be required.

To join a gift economy voluntarily is a fine act.

But gift economies often, as a lot of the comments here have pointed out, turn into hierarchies where gift-giving becomes expected; and in particular into hierarchies where position comes from an unalterable status - age, gender. It's absolutely unreasonable to expect people to be born into a gift economy; you always need the option to leave, and this means you always need the option to accumulate; you need the option to tell your cousin and his cousins and her cousins no.

Some of the saddest routine stories of the developing world come from the intrusion of capitalism into what's traditionally a gift economy: a Filipina works awful hours as a maid in Singapore, obliged by traditional ties to send most of what she earns back to Luzon, and in Luzon her husband invokes the traditions of the gift economy and drinks the earnings.

Reminding people that their husbands drink, and setting up bank accounts in Singapore so that the savings can at the end turn into a lump which provides a house in Luzon, is a pretty honorable development goal.

when a person takes a job in Japan, many of the exchanges are similar to those in a gift economy. The employer is closely involved in the life of the employee and may even help find a spouse for an employee. In return, an employee shows much more loyalty to the employer (in terms of not changing jobs) and is very concerned about the quality of his work.

I have lived here in Japan for over 30 years. Here's my take. The quote does not hold so much any more. There is less job security and people now change employers more freely. Nevertheless, Japanese society does have a strong "gift economy" component. Aside from the institutionalized mid-year and year-end gifts, relatives, friends, associates, and neighbors often give each other things, often something to eat. Sometimes people have too much of something for themselves (including things they received from someone else), so they give the excess portion to others. There is no expectation of an exchange, although it is not unusual for the recipient to grab something they have too much of on the spot, and share it with the giver. Gifts also take the form of helpful favors. For the last 13 years I have lived in a rural district. Here everyone gardens, and many people grow rice, including me (as you can tell from my handle). People are constantly "gifting" others in the neighborhood with garden produce, pickled vegetables, cooked dishes, mushrooms gathered from the surrounding mountains, and what have you. I myself give away lots of vegetables and rice. People do give gifts to people who have been helpful, as a token of their appreciation, although often the recipients think nothing of what they did and do not expect a gift.

Thank you Gail and everyone for a remarkable and generally positive experience in reading. I hope you will come back to this topic later in another post, having incorporated all the wonderful insights and your own research into gift economies.

No one said anything about The Gift, one of the main sources for people researching this topic, although you mentioned it in your post. Hyde's book is really dense, and difficult to read (at least for me) but he talks about art in the gift economy, and how that works in the larger, enveloping market economy - and the difficult relationships between the two economies. Futher discussion along those lines would be welcome (to me.)

Also unmentioned is one of the original American subversions of the gift economy, recounted in Shell Game by the California carpenter and poet Jerry Martien. In his version, the original American colonists were shut out of the market economy by the British and Dutch authorities, who refused to allow them to have much "hard" currency -- preferring to keep the colonists in that era's equivalent of the Third World. The colonists saw that the Indians were apparently exchanging beads ("wampum") and began using wampum as a local currency -- tradeable with the Indians for furs, which were tradeable with Europeans for limited amounts of hard cash.

But wampum was not "money" -- it was part of the Indian traditional gift economy, and served to recount the story of gifts given and received; it was converted into money by the colonists in a sort of violation of its traditional function. And pretty soon, of course, wampum was counterfeited by the colonists, who turned the laborious hand production of beads into an industrial process.

As Hamster noted above, we need the gift economy, and it will always be there when we need it most, because it is the foundation of economic systems -- the default when complexity fails. But it is easily twisted and abused as gifts stop being given forward, and are allowed to accumulate as "profit."