* Tpylkko gives the example of a bracelet with no "use value" therefor having been made for the sole purpose of being giftable. However, Weiner and Mauss both argued that it was not made for exchange, but for keeping: they are inalienable possessions meant to be kept (i.e. as a particular kind of property (immovable property) that an entire western tradition (amongst others) of property law is based on. So property relations are clearly important. Patriot1010 (above) questions why the distinction between market and non-market is important, and here I would point to the example in the article of blood and organ donation. Clearly, it is very important in some countries that these remain non-commodities and only be exchanged through non-market channels.