On the contrary! This is what people don't understand about the practical need for a medium of exchange. You can only barter directly for so long, and then it becomes a nightmare of trading sixteen times to get one thing you wanted. You'd be spending your days carting around your barrel of items in the hope that maybe one person will be willing to trade what you want for what you have. Quoting: Keep2theCode
Heck, even primitives have had currency, whether beads or shells or anything else that was considered valuable.
Providing barter towns/markets are set up. This kind of exchange would imply excess.
But what happens when everybody holds onto 95% of what they have and only trades a small amount, gold/silver wont factor in. Why would somebody trade an asset they can use for one they cant in an unstable time.
Like i said, imagine i have 200 tins of beans. That might be considered an excess, but would the smart move be to trade 150 of them in for some gold and silver, and then trade that gold and silver or something else later.
Or would the smart thing be to hold on to 95% of the beans and trade a few cans for a few cans of something else. Trading in the majority of my stored food would not be a smart move.
See my point.
Now most people are going to respond with this ' but you don't trade what you cant afford to trade ' Exactly my point.
Most people are not going to have gold and silver, and it can be assumed most people are not going to have surplus food/medicine and the like either. So why would somebody trade the majority of their tradeable assets for something that has no immediate use.