And that's all well and good but say you are a wheat farmer and you want a rake, and nobody in the vicinity wishes to trade a rake for wheat, then what do you expect to do without money? The 'big picture' arguments ignore the fact that if I want to tend my smallhold and make enough wheat to survive, I need a new rake, all else is secondary.
We can question the origins of money as much as you like, all that matters is it's utility, and I would love to see a practical alternative.
ahhhh yes!!! It's going to take a while for you.
Thats the thing, settled agricultural societies develope a division of labor that then requires a market economy and so people try to find something that can store value until they need something like a new rake. It is no coincidence that all prosperous civilizations developed some form of market exchange and money. The societies that did not, only exist now because of the good will of those who developed the more efficient system.
I disagree that HG societies require the 'good will' of market societies (unless of course they're using violent force, which many did [see colonialism]), hunter-gatherers can live quite sustainably indefinitely, and did, considering the majority of human existence was as hunter-gatherers, but I do think without market exchange and especially some form of exchange medium, development is severely limited, in the same way it is limited without literacy or the wheel-axle.
Yes, I was refering to the ability to defend there way of life from outsiders, not their ability to be self sufficient. My point was that in the present day, HG societies only exist because market societies allow them to exist. As soon as it is discovered that the HGs are sitting on a valuble resource, they are pretty quick to be displaced or wiped out