1.2 Let us call market, or economic, an exchange of a service or a good for either a quantity of money or a good or service.
Figure 3 - Economic exchange
1. To argue this proposition, let's talk about type X and type Y exchanges by first considering an example of each.
Andrew does the dishes for Paul's restaurant in exchange, type X, for a quantity of food or change. Cleaning dishes is a service rendered. Its counterpart is the transfer of property, in the form of a quantity of food or money. James gave John bread in exchange for wine or a quantity of money. In this exchange, there are type Y, reciprocal transfers of two commodities.
2. An exchange of type X as well as type Y is a barter when the counterpart is not a quantity of money.
And it is partly a barter when the counterpart is not only a quantity of money. In an economy where the practice of barter has become very marginal, a slightly shorter statement of proposition 1.2 becomes almost sufficient: Let us call market, or economic, an exchange of a service or a good for either a quantity of money or a good or service.
3. Type X and Y exchanges are part of the same subset of contracts with reciprocal obligations of both parties.
Andrew does the dishes for Paul's restaurant in exchange for a quantity of money that he later uses to buy an object sold by Jack who in turn uses this quantity of money to engage in an exchange of type X or Y and so on.
All economic exchanges are social; not all social exchanges are economic. Apart from the exchange of one quantity of money for another quantity of money, all the counterparts in exchange for a quantity of money are commodities.
5. But what exactly is a commodity?
And what are the different categories of commodities? A theory of commodity exchanges, i.e. of the exchange of commodities, is too little developed as long as it is not based on a theory of the commodity, or the theory of services and goods that have an economic exchange value.
6. Drawing up an inventory of the kinds of counterparts in exchange for a quantity of money divides all commodities into subsets.
This division is superfluous if the main determinant of any price, or exchange value, is always the same. Otherwise, the main determinant is likely to vary from one kind of commodity to another.
7. To be sure, a method is necessary: postulate the opposite case, even if it means having to conclude that the main determinant is always the same.
So don't dwell on the question: where does the (exchange) value of everything that is sold and bought come from? To prefer it: where does the value (always exchange) of each great kind of thing that is bought and sold comes from? By avoiding any petītiō principiī, including the one, as has already been noted, of the law of supply and demand as a controller of price formation in all circumstances.
8. Economic exchange is an act whose morality is as positive as that of a gift.
Conversely, the economic gift is an act whose morality is potentially as positive as that of economic exchange. The repression of this recognition affects the way enterprises are generally managed.