Constantly having to 'keep up' with ornate displays of generosity can be financially draining or constrain one's individuality. In contrast, truly beneficial gifts are part of a cyclical relationship of giving, accepting, and return in a manner that does not demand a specific response from the receiver. I would argue that the best gifts do not demand an expected type of reciprocity. Both the traditional, so-called primitive types of exchanges detailed in Mauss as well as modern, capitalist exchanges demand a scripted response on the type of the receiver, either of conformity to behavior or giving back an expected sum. In contrast, truly egalitarian gifts merely demand a response left up to the imagination of the receiver, not deference or a specific price.

Mauss views traditional exchanges as more complex because relationships are so important in the transaction, versus capitalism where anyone can buy a particular item, provided that he or she has the money. There are some exceptions to this, of course, even in modern...

Regardless, Mauss sees an advantage in so-called 'primitive' gift-giving because it creates at least some awareness of mutual obligations and a social contract between the giver and the receiver in most instances. Even a more powerful individual has an obligation to the weaker party, unlike an exchange where money is the only determinant, and the receivers in the exchange do not have to interact with one another ever again. But in an egalitarian exchange, a bond is established that is not constricting, and is a true 'sharing' of gifts.
References

Marcel-Israel Mauss. (n.d.). Anthrobase. Retrieved June 16, 2011.

http://www.anthrobase.com/Dic/eng/pers/mauss_marcel.htm

Rodriguez. (n.d.). Lecture. Retrieved June 16, 2011 at http://vimeo.com/16462462