Maybe you`re right. I´m not sure, but it could be.ILong story short: I think the Inca economy was already becoming a relic system by the time the Spaniards arrived, and could not have survived the increasing evolution towards greater complexity and scale in society.
On that I agree, too. At least, I think there`d need to be some reason for the idea never to come up (or even be abandoned fast).Such money-less economies aren't exceptions for nothing. They develop only under specific circumstances. An intermediary means of exchange just makes so much sense under nearly all circumstances that keeping it from existing would be... very hard.
Here, again, I´m not sure if you`re not applying a certain cultural frame, or maybe even an economic theory, onto things rather brachially.Regarding (b), I'd argue that even in the most primitive times, nothing is free. If you hunt, you expend energy and time. You exchange those for food, which you value more. Is the food you gain "free"? Everything has a cost. The absence of money doesn't mean the absence of value and cost... just as the absence of clocks doesn't mean that time ceases to exist.
By postulating "cost" and "value" as psychological entities, you`re stating a theory with the Popperian flaw of not being falsifiable. How would I show you that humans don`t really (always) calculate like that in their minds? I´m sure they don`t, you maybe sure they are, but we can`t prove either.
Well, let´s at least agree that your statement above has moved the topic of "cost" from the social to the psychological domain, shall we?
And could we then agree to focus on the social meaning of "cost" only when talking about the OP`s idea?
In this sense, the game you hunt is free as long as no other human or no rule among humans restricts you from hunting it.
This was the case for most of humanity`s existence. Fairly primitive societies, I agree.