Comments on: The heart of the deal

By: Tamar

Tamar — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:53:04 +0000

Lisa — I’m not sure it was clear to everyone else that we were there first, but I had my suspicions about that woman. There was a certain furtive quality to her asking for six Buffs. Still, I couldn’t bring myself to clean ‘em out — and now I’m glad we didn’t because it’s more interesting having two kinds of chickens. You also have a better chance of being able to tell them apart.

By: lisa

lisa — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:12:43 +0000

That’s not jerkish.

“Jerkish” is the behavior of the others, who must have recognized the correct pecking order, but didn’t tell the seller. (Maybe this foodie community ain’t as jerkless as you think–)

Also think you should have ordered ALL eight Buffs you’d wanted– everyone knew it was a first-come/first-served situation, with a limited supply. Note that the woman who ordered six chicks didn’t feel obliged to buy only half the supply.

By: Tamar

Tamar — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:45:03 +0000

Thanks for the moral support, JLem. On the 1-10 jerkiness scale, I agree that I wasn’t up above about a 3. Still felt jerky, though.

By: JLem

JLem — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:52:21 +0000

I don’t think you were being jerkish. It sounds more like a poorly managed distribution system. You assumed (rightly) that your needs/wants would be taken care of in a logical, as-promised manner. When they were not, you had to take things into your own hands. Being a jerk would have been if you were at the end of the line and demanded first dibs and proclaiming tyranny if your desires weren’t met. You just ensured that proper protocol was followed through with, more-or-less.

By: beachnitpicker

beachnitpicker — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:03:20 +0000

I think that the difference isn’t so much the medium of exchange as it is the size of the community in which its long-term objective value is established and accepted. In a small community bartering goods for goods, jerks not only can be easily identified and excluded, but there is no objective standard for comparing the jerk’s mealy tomatoes with your delicious clams. The jerk must either stop acting in his own short-term interest (i.e., making sure he get the best of every trade) or be frozen out of the community.

By: Tamar

Tamar — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:44:58 +0000

Aaron — It’s a perfectly reasonable question. Goods-for-goods transactions involving jerks undoubtedly go down every day, as do jerkless money-for-goods transactions. I certainly don’t fantasize about a moneyless Utopia. But I think the kind of trade I’m talking about is a special case.

We’re talking about a self-selected group of people who have joined an informal local community of food enthusiasts. From what I can see, most of them participate because they’re interested in spending time and sharing ideas with people with common interests. Even if, deep down, they are jerks, it’s in their interest (i.e. continued participation) to keep that fact under wraps. And so the trades seem to be conducted mainly without jerkiness, or at least the appearance of jerkiness.

I’m sure there are eggs-for-tomatoes exchanges in which one party or the other — or both — feel like they got the short end of the stick, but I haven’t witnessed any.

By: Aaron Haspel

Aaron Haspel — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:05:54 +0000

Why exactly is it that when you trade goods for goods you can’t be a jerk, but when you trade goods for money you can? The hand-waving about “the scale and the calculator” doesn’t quite do it for me.

Of course this is the sort of question that only a jerk would ask.