Doesn't seem like you actually read the article...

I'm afraid this is one of the "article title doesn't fit my ideology" comments.

Not at all, it is actually Smiths ideas that don't fit history. Barter economics emerge from money not the other way around.

>As Smith described, people didn't invent money straight away. First, resources like salt and metals; then stuff you can melt (easily divisible).

None of these are barter. All of these are more like money...

What? Smith? As in Adam Smith the guy who died in the year 1790?

I'm not a historian but I'm pretty sure his ideas about history aren't relevant to us in the year 2020.

Might want to read the article first.

The first two words after the title are "Adam Smith". Later text confirms that it's the same person, with "The man who arguably founded modern economic theory, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, popularized the idea that barter was a precursor to money."

The idea of Smith, Ricardo and Marx, many interested economists and philosophers of economics argue, can still be used very fruitfully to analyze current economic and societal conditions. The fact that some of their analyses were dropped as the discipline of economics grew out of political economy is not necessarily a sign that the analyses were deficient. Alan Freeman has some essays on the ideological motivations which led to their analyses of labour and capital being dropped.