This scenario should explain how someone could use a barter banking system extensively in a world where the barter banking system was used extensively to relocate for a job.

Adam is a regular, single guy, an accountant with a house, car, job, etc., living in Baltimore.

His employer - an accounting firm that specializes dealing with high-end clients who use the barter banking system extensively - wants him to move to Miami.  This would involve 'selling' his house and moving all of his stuff to Miami.

Now, instead of contracting a real-estate agent, moving company, etc., everything is taken care of by the barter banking system on his mobile phone, all within the span of a week.

Day1

Adam deposits nearly all of his stuff into the barter banking system - house, car, sofa, bedroom set, appliances, even his cutterly.  All that he doesn't deposit are the clothes on his back, a pair of shoes, his wallet with his id and various cards, his phone, and a duffel-bag with some personal effects for which he holds some sentimental attachment.
   
He walks out his front door, hails a cab, and starts off to the airport.  On the way to the airport, the barter banking system has already matched through the various barter chains (that in this world form a very complicated network), a flight to and hotel stay in Miami.

So far, this hasn't cost him anything, because the company is paying for his move and putting him up in a hotel for a maximum of 2 weeks, with an expected cost to the company of 2 office desks, 12 hours service time to a client, and $2,500.  The cab ride is paid for in cash with his company's credit card.  Keep in mind that the extensive use of barter banking system does NOT replace the monetary system, for there are RARE cases where the use of the monetary system is deemed to be more efficient.

Back to the scenario.

Adam has opted to allow the the barter banking system virtually complete autonomy in authorizing transactions to facilitate his move, and as such the system goes about trying to find the most 'profitable' deal for Adam's home and stuff.  This involves finding a 'buyer' of Adam's home who would also 'buy' a lot of Adam's stuff, so that there would be less stuff to have to be relocated and stored in a storage facility pending its 'sale' to other 'buyers'.  Therefore, out of all of the potential 'buyers' that the system identifies, it determines which of those potential 'buyers' would also 'buy' a lot of Adam's stuff, and do so EITHER by barter or with money, and which buyer would barter and/or purchase with money the stuff at the best 'price' or best 'relative value'.  The system sends alerts to those 'buyers' with offers that they have the choice to accept or decline.  These alerts show up to those potential home buyers in the form of a list of items that are included with the house.  Only the home buyers are included in these alerts at this point, and only those home buyers who are in a position to move into the house quickly.  The system won't present the same offer to all buyers mind you but better offers to those home-buyers who will accept more of Adam's stuff and move in more quickly than others.

Now, as it happens, there is a guy whose name is Bill, who is enroute to Baltimore from Miami.  He is on a plane, scheduled to arrive at 3pm - 2 hours from now.  He is also 'selling' his home in Miami, along with a lot of his stuff.

The system thus recognizes these two clients as potential matches for a good 'match' for the exchange of each others' homes and stuff in a way that would be highly profitable to both parties.  Bill has also opted to allow the barter banking system near full autonomy in conducting transactions on his behalf, within certain limits.

So, within mere minutes, before Adam even arrives at the corner down the street from his home, he is presented with an offer for his home, and Bill for his home, along with respective list of items both Adam and Bill can trade.  Both Adam and Bill consider the offers of the respective homes and items.  Both contemplating what they would be willing to accept of each others' items, the system providing recommended trades. 

Keep in mind that the system is also presenting both Adam and Bill other potential matches in real-time.  The system has determined that Bill and Adam are most probably the best of the other highly probable 'matches' out there at this time and that the odds of finding a better potential match are such that there probably won't be a better match for about 14 days.  Keep in mind that all potential matches are also currently being alerted of the various probability of finding better matches as well.

Nevertheless, neither Adam nor Bill trust the system completely.  As such, Bill has perused multiple offers since leaving Baltimore.  Adam's home and items interest him.  He tends to agree that Adam's 'probable offer' that the system calculates would probably be the best one he's seen so far.  Likewise, Adam, thinks the offer is good, but would nevertheless like to wait a while longer and see what else the system might come up with.

Over the course of the afternoon, Adam peruses other offers while waiting for his flight.  Bill has landed in Baltimore and is on his way to a hotel.  Adam finally settles into his airplane seat and has himself a drink. Then, the system alerts Adam that Bill has opted to present a verified offer.  The system thinks is the best and recommends that Adam submits a verified offer for Bill's home and items.

Adam peruses home's and items' specs as well as the data of the cost analysis the system forecasts he will experience if he waits longer.  It shows him that essentially he could expect a better match only after 14 days (with a margin of error of 11.6%).  He takes this to mean that, essentially, for the next 14 days Bill's offer is probably the best he is going to get. 

The system has a good track record of being accurate in this regard, and so before Bill's verified offer expires, he opts to present Bill a counter offer.  Adam thinks that since the company will put him up in a hotel for 2 weeks anyway, he might as well try and low-ball Bill.

Bill gets the verified counter offer instantly as Adam inputs it, along with the option to look at the same sort of data and forecasts that indicate when he will most likely get a better offer.  Bill counters in real-time accepting or declining Adam's items accordingly.  Adam likewise provides a verified counter-offer in real-time as he accepts or declines Bill's items accordingly, all as forecasts of when each will probably receive better offers are updated in real-time as well.  Their respective deals involved exchanging not only the homes but also at various stages in the bargaining process somewhere between 60% and 90% of each others' items.

At last, though there's no deal.  Bill realizes that Adam is trying to low-ball him and rescinds his offer.  Adam doesn't care, again, since he has 2 weeks in a hotel paid by the company.  He turns off his phone and enjoys another drink. 

Bill isn't too perturbed, as this is essentially how it goes.  He puts his phone down and watches a movie.  His company is also putting him up in a hotel for a couple weeks.

Eventually, both parties make deals with others, deals which were not as good as this first deal.

A week later Bill ends up trading his house to someone who accepted 80% of his stuff.

Six days later, Adam, however, made a deal with someone who accepted only 20% of his stuff.

Both Bill and Adam move into their new homes a week later.  How their respective deals work out in detail will follow in another post. 

Day 2 to follow.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/world/ame … orean-ship

One unit of "repair 50-year old anti-air defenses" for one shipload of sugar.

Holy crap, The Yell figured it out!  XenoCorp exists! 

Nope, just regular venture capitalists.  You're missing the band wagon, the Yell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Yq-v83RLo

Well, that Tradebank mentioned in the above video isn't exactly what I am envisioning.  What I am envisioning is a more efficient system, one more like a not-for-profit credit union, where the profits go to the customers of the barter bank, because, essentially, the customers ARE the bank.

You'll see...

So, back on day 2, Adam is sitting in the hotel lobby, waiting for a cab to take him to the office, looking at this 1.8% value increase due to the exchange of his 2021 Acura for those 193 items, and a 1.5% increase overall, and he wonders, how does the system figure I made 1.8% on this transaction and how is it I have earned 1.5% overall?  Why did the system do this transaction for his car so quickly?

Well, first-off, the system realizes that it's got to move all 'stuff' that probably wouldn't be included in a trade for his house, and this would include his car.  Not many home 'buyers' would be in a position to also take his car.  Getting his car moved out of the picture increases the likelihood that the house can get 'sold' or 'occupied' faster.  This in and of itself holds value, because the longer the house is unoccupied, the less value increase there is for Adam on the transaction for his home.  His home is the big-ticket item here, and the system is going to do what it can to prioritize that transaction.

Just as few home 'buyers' will want to move into a place filled with stuff they don't want, the system recognizes it is a priority, then, to get the stuff potential home-buyers wouldn't want out of the house.  In Adam's case, this includes quite a lot.  He was sort of a pack-rat.

The system has cataloged all of his stuff, and since the premises are vacant, has arranged for the pick-up of the stuff that potential home-buyers wouldn't accept with the purchase of the home.  There are various people, both private individuals and employees of retail companies at this moment conducting transactions for stuff in Adam's old house in Baltimore.

Example: cutlery

While a kitchen appliance store (A) is conducting a transaction with customers for a refurbished cutlery set at a store location in Boston, representatives from a 'moving and storage company' (B) in Baltimore are packing-up Adam's cutlery (among other things).   At the same time  an 'item refurbishing company' (C) is refurbishing another cutlery set.  The system arranges a transaction between these three parties who usually deal in refurbished cutlery regarding Adam's old cutlery set to the extent whereby just as the customers at the kitchen appliance store (A) in Boston finalize their purchase, Adam's old cutlery set is 'gone', exchanged for whatever the customers in Boston where willing to exchange for the refurbished cutlery set, minus the amount the barter-based supply chain 'earned'. 

Adam, if he cared to really get into the nitty-gritty of how the system is bartering his stuff, would only see the estimated profit he has earned above and beyond the base credit amount from its ACTUAL 'sale' to customers somewhere. 

He would see this even though, in actuality, the moving and storage company employees are still at his old house in Baltimore and are just now packing up the ACTUAL cutlery set.

What Adam doesn't see, again due to privacy regulations and the complexity of expressing how the barter-based supply  chains actually work is how the kitchen appliance company (A) in Boston, the moving and storage company (B) in Baltimore, and the item refurbishing company (C) in Baltimore all all the other companies involved had their own company bartering accounts adjusted accordingly to he extent whereby item and time credit was exchanged between them and the customers so as to 'credit' Adam with the portion he would be entitled to by the sale of the cutlery in Boston. 

Essentially, all Adam could see if he cared to look is that his old cutlery was exchanged for whatever it was that the customers at the kitchen appliance store in Boston were willing to barter for refurbished cutlery.  In this particular case, Adam could see that he was credited the value of concert tickets to an opera in Beijing China for the 23rd of March 2023.  The customers 'paid' the equivalent of something worth roughly 7% more, however.  This 7% is allotted to the supply chain.  The supply chain earned more than he would have gotten for non-refurbished cutlery, and so for Adam, it is perfectly acceptable that the companies in the supply chain earned that 7%.

If he wanted to, he could have watched all of the transactions occur in real time on his smart phone.  But he, like most rational people, doesn't care about such details anyway.   All that he cares about is the estimated % increase he has thus far incurred by the wheelings and dealings of a system that has been designed to earn HIM maximum possible profit on stuff and property that he currently isn't using, just as he rightfully and justly should expect to earn.  After all, he has DEPOSITED them and deserves INTEREST.

Now how did company A, B, and C conduct their business to earn them the 7% profit by which they would pay the salaries (in whatever form salaries might be paid in such a world) for the employees who are at Adam's old house collecting his stuff, or refurbishing old cutlery, or mining or recycling or molding or transporting metal, etc., etc., yadda yadda?

Well, essentially, company A had bartered time and items credit to some other companies XYZ which had bartered items and time credit to company B,  which had bartered time and item credit to company C to the extent that every company simply had their various item and time credit adjusted accordingly, an interactivity better expressed by a super-computer than myself.

A super-computer is essentially what the Barter Bank system would be - software arranging inter-connectivity and mutually beneficial transactions between various parties.

For Adam, not being a super-computer himself, is simply happy to see that his home is being staged for potential home-buyers, at a current estimated profit on his home and all of his stuff of 1.5% is the amount he has access to RIGHT NOW.

He is happy because, now if he so chose to use it, he could, even though the bartering of his home and stuff is still being sorted out.  You see, in this system, his home and his stuff is already considered to be in his account and 'exchangeable'.

Essentially, a day later, here on day 2, if he were to go out and accept a home or car, or any stuff that he might need, all that would happen is that his 'credit' and estimated 'profit' on that credit with the barter banking system would be adjusted accordingly.

As per how he got 1.8% on the car transaction, well, as it is one of the larger transactions, he clicks on it, and gets all the details of the 193 new assets.  He focuses on the larger ones.

More to follow...

Oh, also, don't forget that this system is violating core principles of fiduciary duty to clients.

Real estate agents, attorneys, and other individuals representing people in business transactions generally have legal duties to prevent conflict of interests.  In particular, they generally cannot represent two individuals who are in an inherently adversarial transaction.

For example, if I'm selling a high-class house for $1 million on behalf of a seller I represent, and a buyer I also represent looks at the house and tells me he'd be willing to buy it for as much as $2 million... what do I do?  Do I get the transaction done at $1.5 million and split the benefit between them both?  Prefer my buyer and get the $1 million offer?  Or go to the seller and suggest he re-list his property for $2 million and enjoy the nice extra benefit?  The problem is that, due to my fiduciary duty, both the buyer and seller were expecting me to do what is in their best interests.  However, I'm in a situation where it's impossible for me to do anything without violating the best interest of one party or the other due to the negotiating wiggle room.

In this case, people are giving XenoCorp the authority to take their property and engage in transactions with other customers of XenoCorp, going so far as to take the individual out of the price negotiation.  The problem is that XenoCorp represents both the buyers and sellers in the deal, and will have vested interests on behalf of both parties.  As a result, XenoCorp would either:
A: Not give each person it represents the best deal they can possibly get, in which case they're a shoddy representative, and/or:
B: Outright screw over one party

It doesn't matter if it's an optional thing for clients.  The fact that you offer the opportunity to engage in the conflict of interests is inherently bad because they're supposed to trust you, and you're placing yourself in a situation where you aren't to be trusted as their representative.

And before you ask, the thing which differentiates XenoCorp from the business you linked to in terms of fiduciary duty is that XenoCorp is proactively negotiating price on behalf of the original owner.  The company you linked to, in contrast, is basically acting like Craigslist.

Oh, I'm definitely not talking about the fiduciary duty issue in the context of the scenario where people are deciding for themselves the offers they will make.  At that point, you're pretty much a giant Craigslist, so w/e.

However, the automated system would absolutely still be a fiduciary duty.  You don't get a right to neglect the duty to a client just because you've automated the process of negotiation.  If a real estate agent handled all deals by setting up a computer program which read online house listings and threw out offers, the real estate agent would still be the person deciding to use the program, deciding the parameters of weighing valuations for aspects of properties, etc.  You don't get to avoid fiduciary duties to clients just because you surrender the very power which you're given.

But even dropping the legal issue, there's the practical issue I mentioned.  Very simple scenario:
George wants to sell a house.  He's looking for items of value equal to $200,000.  (I'm using currency here just because it's easier than saying "1 million pop tarts")
John is willing to buy that house.  He's willing to pay total items worth $400,000 for that house.

A deal will inevitably go through.  No doubt.  However, the sole question is where the price will be set between $200,000 and $400,000.  Either person could hire a real estate agent who would negotiate to get what's best for them (In George's case, selling that home for $400,000.  In John's case, buying the home for $200,000).  Or they could roll the dice and go with your abstract algorithm.  No matter what deal is set up in the system, to at least one (if not both) parties, the deal would have been worse than what was very feasible.  Quite frankly, that algorithm is just a bad representative for the interests of both parties, and they would most likely look to hire real negotiators.

"If a real estate agent handled all deals by setting up a computer program which read online house listings and threw out offers, the real estate agent would still be the person deciding to use the program, deciding the parameters of weighing valuations for aspects of properties, etc.  You don't get to avoid fiduciary duties to clients just because you surrender the very power which you're given."

But, that's just it, Zarf, it isn't a real estate agent who is handling the deals with the automated program.  It isn't any fiduciary agent deciding to use the automated program or the parameters.  It is the client / customer directly deciding to do so.  It is the same as a person using an online banking system with its research tools to conduct THEIR OWN online trades.

@ You_Fool

First regarding "magic" computer system.  This is an issue, I grant you.   Nevertheless, I think even current computing power is powerful and cheap enough (if used smartly) to provide access to the necessary computing power to the general public so we can facilitate such a system.  For instance, we could use cloud computing whereby everyone has access to synchronized "molecular (or even quantum supercomputers", dedicated to processing individuals' data and analyzing and presenting personalized forecasts.  Alternatively, unused individuals' computing power on their mobile devices, home computers, etc., could be used as necessary for the task.

Please refer to the below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … m6ScvNygUU

Consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trans … -_2011.svg
http://www.webpronews.com/kaku-explains … er-2012-04

Re: how does the system get set up in the first place.  Another good issue.  I think the initial stages of such a system are currently already underway in the form of such websites such as Craigslist and Kijiji  - that these are essentially 'brands' that together could form the barter banking system of the future.  The short-term benefits that attract users of these sites are the same short-term benefits that would attract initial participants of the barter system (such as being able to trade your unwanted stuff for wanted stuff).

Re: "more" and "less" and "fiduciary responsibility".  It seems that, like The Yell, you are attributing a $ amount to what is essentially unquantifiable value, thinking in terms of a monetary paradigm which is simply not compatible with reality.  You seem to think that 'value' can be quantified, when, in fact it can't.  This is the flaw inherent in the monetary system.  Value is unquantifiable.  The route of our troubles with the monetary system is that it attempts to quantify what is essentially unquantifiable, and it is the route of the recent failure of the global financial system.  Value is subjective, personal, a matter of taste, preference, or purpose or utility, a attribution which is different for every person.

This brings us back to how the automated system which conducts transactions on behalf of the client: this would NOT put 'the computer' in a fiduciary position, for there would be no objective 'MORE' which the system would be responsible to acquire on behalf of the client.  Rather, the system would simply be arranging the most efficient use of deposited items, which would also happen to garner for the depositor the most possible 'interest' on deposited items, and do so according to the user's stated SUBJECTIVE, PERSONAL taste, preference, or stated purpose or utility.  In other words, the system would not be in a fiduciary position because people wouldn't be expecting MORE or BETTER in the objective sense of these terms, but, rather, simply DIFFERENT or BETTER FOR THEM in the SUBJECTIVE sense.

Re: "Why is this barter system better?"

The biggest reason why such a system would be better is that value would be associated AS actual items, that are backed by the ACTUAL value inherent to them, according to the subjective, personal value associated to them by the individual's taste, preference, utility, etc.. This is more ACCURATE to the ACTUAL value of the item than how value is represented by a monetary system which attempts to represent the value of items objectively.  Such attribution is necessarily going to be inaccurate, open to abuse and manipulation, and fosters a world where there is rampant social injustice, inefficiency, waste of resources, etc..  In essence, a batter system would be more ethical, as it would make more efficient use of resources, retain or even foster the appreciation of the value of items over time rather than artificially, and INACCURATELY depreciating the value of items over time...Essentially, there are many reasons why the use of such a barter system would be 'BETTER FOR US'.

Re: " It seems to be more complex and require a high level of knowledge to undertake."

In actuality, it would be far simpler and more straightforward (and far more equitable) than our current monetary system.  If you read the scenarios above, and the continuation of the scenario (when I have time to continue it), you'll see how simple and equitable it would be in its application.  For now, consider it like this:

People would end up getting used to the idea that they OWN any sort of item that they might need or want at any given moment in the future, because the track record of the 'bank' that they use has been such that they HAVE HAD access to any such item that they have wanted or needed in the past (according to their 'CREDIT' with that bank, of course).  And because they are used to this idea, people don't tend to hoard, they don't tend to want lavishly, and, perhaps more importantly, are never in much NEED of anything, at any time.

In this way, it is equitable, simple, convenient, efficient, sustainable, etc. - a type of world, that I, personally, and I think the vast majority of humanity, would rather live in.

Keep in mind that the extensive use of such a system on a global scale would not replace the monetary system, but, rather, simply augment it, and perhaps even remedy it, much like a check and balance on it, a system of check and balance on the monetary system which, personally, I think we are in desperate need.

Let me know if / when you want the continuation of the scenario through day 2  - day 7...

"So if I was "owed" apples, but I didn't cash out before the baker got there, I would either

a)  Wait for another mass deposit

b)  settle for more expensive, less portable apple pies

c)   say "screw this" and bail on the system."

Why would you have deposited apples if you had wanted to withdraw apples?

/me thinks The Yell is confused.

You deposit 100 apples at 1:00 pm.  You can withdraw at least 100 apples worth of apple pies at 1:00:01 pm.  If you wait until the baker shows up at your orchard to pick 100 apples, go back to his bakery and bake apple pies, so say at 3pm, you could get 100 apples worth of apple pies + whatever amount of apple pie 'interest' was earned in those 2 hours time, an amount determined by whatever the cost of borrowing would be in that community, as determined by the baker's credit with the bank.