"[..] Exchange, as practised by people for about the last 100,000 years [..]"
We know that exchange is just one more activity that humans do, but, historically, in the thousand of years context, it was not fundamental.
We could argue that in the palaeolithic the social organization had little to do with markets. We could argue that in the neolithic, the social organization was, in most cases, hierarchical and top-down.
So, the implicit assumption of markets as the 'natural state' of human organization has not real basis. Even money is an invention of the state.
The idea that markets are powerful tools don't need to be defended. It's the idea that markets know what is better for us what many reject.
It's like saying that we should just start the lawnmower and leave it to decide what to cut. Then, when we don't like the garden, we have to accept it's for the best, because if a better garden was possible is what we would have.
We know that exchange is just one more activity that humans do, but, historically, in the thousand of years context, it was not fundamental.
We could argue that in the palaeolithic the social organization had little to do with markets. We could argue that in the neolithic, the social organization was, in most cases, hierarchical and top-down.
So, the implicit assumption of markets as the 'natural state' of human organization has not real basis. Even money is an invention of the state.
The idea that markets are powerful tools don't need to be defended. It's the idea that markets know what is better for us what many reject.
It's like saying that we should just start the lawnmower and leave it to decide what to cut. Then, when we don't like the garden, we have to accept it's for the best, because if a better garden was possible is what we would have.