The idea of whether or not bartering would increase came to mind in the form of an answer to a question I had regarding the possibility of a forced shift away from hard currency based society to an electronic debit/credit one. It seemed to be a natural alternative.
The boys and I had a discussion about this today - when the economy would switch to barter after a "shock" and when it would move back toward more convenient stores of value (silver, gold, etc.). Money was originally developed due to inconveniences in transport and storage of goods. It is way more convenient to move a kilo of silver than lead 5 head of cattle 10 miles away for barter. With an agreed-upon store of value your blacksmith may not agree to make you a pothook for 3 chickens if he already has enough chickens. But he could agree for an ounce of silver if he can exchange it for what he needs. And the silver still has other uses - i.e. water purification.
It is likely the 3 Bs will be king initially, but as we see in our present society, Americans are willing to pay much for convenience.
It will have to which is sad because the "money" we use really isn't money at all.
We will lose faith in the currency and from there things will devolve as they always do in a country that has a currency crisis. You may have to barter to exchange goods. Maybe trade your little sister for a 12 pack of PBR. Swap a dozen ears of corn for 4 tomatoes. A cigar for a loaf of bread.
In a true extended catastrophic event, I always wondered how well gold/silver/diamonds could be traded for water/food/ammo/shelter or would like items trade better (water for food for example). There was a humorous video of a roman era trader asking for 3 chickens for his product. A man told him he had something better; GOLD. The roman asked if he could eat the gold? No. Can i feed it to my chickens? No. Can I drink it? No. Well then it is worthless, 3 chickens!