Hmm.. I sence a bit of intellectual ego in such that you ask questions that at the same time contain assumptions as to their answer which is ironic.In addition you speak rather condencendingly which is further irony in that such articulate antagonism could come from someone appearing so academic.

Nonetheless, from what it seems your probably not use to the flaws of your viewpoints being elaborated so i'll be more specific. I didn't think I would need to be so concise in hopes I wouldn't have to right a book on this post but seeing as how the detailed articultion of your folly is now nessassary, I will oblige.

"Starting from a world where we merely shared everything"

I see this to be your premise. It is an assumption and the foundation of your flawed view. It assume that early societies shared everything when they did not. Why? because as stated, people come from different environments....

So if someone were in a desert with say 10 gallons of water...it's not likely they will share everything an leave themselves with nothing. It is more likely that they would share "some" of there desert gems IN RETURN for more water from tropical regions". That would be logical.

So as mentioned, the concept of "sharing everything" implies infinite resource or equal amount of resources which everyone can share freely. It implys no limitations. However a community could not survive if they did not hold limitations on sharing. These limitations are the reason for trade. They ensure that as resources are depleted, other resources are renewed.

"someone had to come in and claim that we can experience a greater variety of all sorts of things by coming together at a place (the creation of the market) "

More assumptions; The assumption that someone said there is no need for a market place because a market will not create greater variety then what is already freely available; But if we are talking about environment than it is not specified what is available an what is not, therefore the creation of a market can indeed showcase resources from foreign regions which would give a land without such resources greater variety. So I don't know who this "someone" is that you assume showed up to change the way things were but I don't believe your theory.

" This COULD be a case of him creating something in his own mind, to contend with."

I guess it is not. My meaning on the above point should be clear.

" But before you even try that, I recommend that you ask questions to confirm your viewpoints. "

I don't need your recommendation because my views are confirmed already as I will continue to point out.

" If you had given any thought that that which is in the back of your mind (STUCK ON TRADING) after reading the note on 'The barter System' there is a question that should have been flavor of the day. HOW DOES A SHARING WORLD GET INTO TRADING??????"

I'm not stuck on anything. I am fluid in this position I chose. Your flavor of the day question did not arrive in my mind because I already had the answer which is what i have attempted to explain to you.

Your concept of sharing is flawed. Your concept of sharing implies "giving without expecting anything in return" as in "no need to trade, just give freely".

This concept of sharing only shows the limitation of your perspective being that in the universe ALL FORMS OF SHARING ARE AN EXCHANGE. ALL FORMS OF SHARING IS A CORREPSONDENCE. You appear to be the academic type I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AN OPPOSITE REACTION". In other words ALL FORMS OF SHARING INSPIRE A CORRESPONDENCE. So in this sence SHARING AND TRADING ARE THE SAME THING.

So there is no such things as "a sharing world" that is devoid of a "trading world". Anything that is produced by humans will be given with an expectation of recieving even if the recieving is just some form of esoteric blessing.

"As you see here, this is a statement that only exist to serve you favor of the concept of TRADING. "

My concept of trading is the literal definition of the word which means "to tread a path" or " to occupy one's self in something". In other words, trading is the path of exchange. THE PATH OF SHARING.

"So right now you're in a fight (mentally) and you believe that you have to fight, instead of MERELY considering additional viewpoints and let them weigh in comparison as if your interest could not be bought by 'FIRST INTRODUCTIONS' or 'THE MOST CHARISMATIC' but only by that with appears most reasonable to you."

Your intellectual ego serves to your detriment because it's no need to (continuously) assume what I am thinking when I've made myself perfectly clear. I am not explaining what is most reasonable to me. I have explained the fact that "a sharing world" IS a "trading world" and visa versa.

"I help them and ask for nothing in return."

Incorrect. What you want in return is the reason you are helping them in the first place. I assmume you want them to succeed. If they began actions that made their business a detriment to you I'm sure you would not involve yourself with them. So in fact what you want in return is compliance. Even if you do not ask for it, it is your expectation. You trade your support in return for their compliance with your expectations. To say another way, you share your support an they share their acceptance of it.....Then you can USE THEM as a means to advertise your noble intentions as you've done by providing their reference and posting their link for validity.

"ALWAYS BE INSPIRED TO TRADE RESOURCES????? -Where did this come from and what is it based on?"

It came from Nature and it is based on the Natural Law of correspondence. The principles inherit in resource management is known as economics. The law of economics is supply and demand. As long as supply and demand exists so will trade. An they will aways exist because humans are ruled by nessessity. Someone must work to grow food..Some must learn A TRADE. The reward of which is perhaps merely, appreciation. Nonetheless they want something in return for effort. Again you eaglitarian social view is flawed.

Your philosphy of " if everyone shared everything equally than there would be no market and no need for trade" is a flawed philosophy because as stated, everyone everywhere does not have the same amount of resources so at certain times, some will have to share less and other to share more.

All products in society do not hold the same value which is yet another fact that creates a market all on it's own.

" Not only has the world moved on from such kindergarten concepts, but when we talk about A NATURAL FUNCTION, this includes learned behavior"

apparently you are the only one with the kindergarden concept that we all can share equally and freely, infinitely without any means of economic boundary regulated by market value. Nonsensicle to say the least.

"Finally, I see here that you have no idea what "reciprocity" means. This word is closer to the term "cooperation" than "exchange.""

reciprocity, exchange, cooperation, correlation, correspondence, sharing, trading, communicating.....

all these words essentially mean the same thing. I think it is you without the idea. Or perhaps you have your own idea that has you deluded from seeing the fundementals of economics.

I'll conclude by reiterating the simple to understand fundemental flaw in your perspective.

SHARING IS TRADING AND TRADING IS SHARING.

FREE IS NOT REALLY FREE BECAUSE FREE IS NOT FREE OF CONSEQUENCES.

So the concept of a utopian society where everyone shares things freely and lack does not exist an everyone lives in a state of permanant happiness is highly idealistic but practically unsound.

So there is no world without trade. Where ever there are resources with a variation of values, there will be a market.The energy people use to procure resources has a value as well as the time it takes them to obtain those supplies.

So there will always be a market, with a price because their will always be a fluctuating value between resources........

A market place is nothing more than a "region of mathamatical measurements" which as stated must exist to fullfill supply and demand.

Lay the egalitarian philosophy to the wayside.

All things in life are not even. Our people need to learn how to trade