The author shows that before there was money, there was debt. For 5,000 years humans have lived in societies divided into debtors and creditors. For 5,000 years debt and debt forgiveness have been at the center of political debates, laws and religions. The words “guilt,” “sin,” and “redemption” come from ancient debates about debt. These terms and the ideas of debt shape our most basic ideas of right and wrong.
The author shows that before there was money, there was debt. For 5,000 years humans have lived in societies divided into debtors and creditors. For 5,000 years debt and debt forgiveness have been at the center of political debates, laws and religions. The words “guilt,” “sin,” and “redemption” come from ancient debates about debt. These terms and the ideas of debt shape our most basic ideas of right and wrong.
This book started out good but sorta fell apart in the second half. Graeber's historical analysis leaves a lot to be desired. Seems to fall into all of the same pitfalls other anarchists do. Also, statements like "Communism = Love" and "Freedom = able to make friends" are eye-rolling.
This book started out good but sorta fell apart in the second half. Graeber's historical analysis leaves a lot to be desired. Seems to fall into all of the same pitfalls other anarchists do. Also, statements like "Communism = Love" and "Freedom = able to make friends" are eye-rolling.
Debt is an anthropologist's take on the history of money, debt, and political economy. The book is largely an attack on many of the assumptions mainstream economists make about human nature and human history. Foremost among those false assumptions is what Graeber calls the Myth of Barter - the idea that prior to money, trade happened only through barter. Graeber, like others before him, points out that a society or economy organized around barter has never existed. Instead, the earliest human societies organized trade around centralized communal distribution or (much more commonly) credits and debts, often elaborately measured and recorded.
Graeber then re-tells 5,000 years of economic history, arguing that history can be seen as a cycle between debt-based and money-based societies. He explains that the first money-based societies were largely an outgrowth of imperialism, war finance, and slavery. The general idea is that imperial states began to raise professional …
Debt is an anthropologist's take on the history of money, debt, and political economy. The book is largely an attack on many of the assumptions mainstream economists make about human nature and human history. Foremost among those false assumptions is what Graeber calls the Myth of Barter - the idea that prior to money, trade happened only through barter. Graeber, like others before him, points out that a society or economy organized around barter has never existed. Instead, the earliest human societies organized trade around centralized communal distribution or (much more commonly) credits and debts, often elaborately measured and recorded.
Graeber then re-tells 5,000 years of economic history, arguing that history can be seen as a cycle between debt-based and money-based societies. He explains that the first money-based societies were largely an outgrowth of imperialism, war finance, and slavery. The general idea is that imperial states began to raise professional armies and hire mercenaries. The soldiers, travelling far from home and not trusting that those around them would be around them for much longer, could not rely on credits and debts. At the same time, the states needed a way to mobilize occupied territories in support of their armies. The states, conveniently in possession of new slaves to work the mines and looted gold, began minting coins. They paid the soldiers in coins, then required occupied territories pay taxes in those same coins. Markets then sprung up around the armies as occupied people found ways to earn gold coins by providing for the soldiers. Oftentimes when the armies moved on, markets and coinage would dry up and locals would go back to using credits and debts for trade amongst themselves. States in China, India, and the Mediterranean all developed money in this way from roughly 500 - 300 BCE. Graeber notes that most major world religions arose around the same time, and argues that many of them are responses to debt crises and moral questions raised by cash economies. As empires fell and the Middle Ages began, power shifted away from governments and towards these religious institutions. Churches and temples sucked up gold and introduced new attitudes towards merchants, debt, and interest-bearing loans. As a result, society shifted back towards debt and credit, while still using the currencies of dead empires as units of account. The pendulum swung back towards cash economies in the 1400s due to relaxed attitudes towards interest and growing imperial aspirations in Europe, as well as demand for silver and gold in China. Graeber argues that we are currently in another great swing towards a debt-based society, and have been since 1971 when Nixon ended the international gold standard.
Throughout the book, Graeber also includes discussions about religious conceptions of debt, moral theories of various forms of economic relations, and "social currencies" that some isolated cultures use to organize relations and debts. I liked his acknowledgement that what libertarian economists often call the free market is in fact heavily reliant on enforcement of property rights (both physical and intellectual) and debt obligations, and that the distinction between the state and market is largely false because money and markets have always been intimately connected to state policy and politics. I also appreciated his general attitude that human nature and human history is complicated, and that intellectual frameworks that attribute human behavior to a single motivation (whether it be self-interest, honor, or mutual aid) are necessarily wrong. Overall, I found many of his insights to be extremely interesting, and I think most of his main ideas are convincing. However, his analyses sometimes rest on little more than anecdotes, obscure passages of religious texts, or even etymologies. Insofar as he makes critiques about the current state of the world, his statements strike me as slight generalizations, making me wonder if perhaps his historical observations (about which I am far, far less qualified to question) are similarly overgeneralized.
Review of 'Debt: The First 5,000 Years' on 'Goodreads'
5 stars
A thoughtful dive into the history of currency, what we all owe each other, and the philosophies of equality and merit we take for granted underpinning everything. Ultimately, Graeber critiques capitalism without suggesting any quick fixes.
He ascribes a considerable amount of intentionality and architecting to our current system, and his historical storytelling sometimes invisibly transitions into factually unsubstantiated musing, but his ideas are gristle for thought, and good leads into more reading on the philosophy of value.
Very interesting historical and anthropological overview of what people do with debts. I only knew debts from taking up money to buy a house or a car or from news of companies going bancrupt. Graeber shows its rich history, its connections to gifts, relations, slavery, honor, military and fair markets.
Most memorable for me were the sections explaining that our idea of freedom is derived from a roman citizen to their slaves and thus freedom being something you can have or loose as well as being do do whatever is permitted with ones property.
Un antropólogo analiza los preceptos de la economía mediante el estudio de comportamientos y culturas reales, destruyendo el mito del trueque y mostrándonos una historia compleja y sumamente interesante de los fenómenos económicos y sus a veces terribles consecuencias.
Everyone really needs to read this book. I just finished it today and will probably need to go back and read it again to fully process it. But my very, very brief summary would be - Everything you know about the economy is wrong. Debt is not evil, in fact it can be key to human relationships. Barter didn't come before money. There is a straight line connection between cash, government, war, slavery, and the deterioration of all human relationships. We all need to stop being industrious little worker bees and start imagining a different kind of economy before the whole thing goes to shit even more than it already has.
Everyone really needs to read this book. I just finished it today and will probably need to go back and read it again to fully process it. But my very, very brief summary would be - Everything you know about the economy is wrong. Debt is not evil, in fact it can be key to human relationships. Barter didn't come before money. There is a straight line connection between cash, government, war, slavery, and the deterioration of all human relationships. We all need to stop being industrious little worker bees and start imagining a different kind of economy before the whole thing goes to shit even more than it already has.
Review of 'Debt: The First 5,000 Years' on 'Goodreads'
5 stars
Very thought-provoking read. The destruction of the Myth of Barter, and the spanking of the field of Economics for perpetuating it, is the obvious centerpiece for this book. In addition to that, I have to say the de-linking of "the market" and "Capitalism" was another big blow for me. It is obvious to me now that these two are not the same, but Graeber does an excellent job demolishing the foundations of received wisdom.
I will likely read this book again at some point, next time in text, not only to highlight some of the excellent lines, but also to try and grasp his judgement on credit. Though he denounces debt and ridicules coinage, he seems to be okay with credit, at least in its traditional "honourable" sense. Certainly he highlights the predatory, but I think I missed his final stance in the audio.
Very thought-provoking read. The destruction of the Myth of Barter, and the spanking of the field of Economics for perpetuating it, is the obvious centerpiece for this book. In addition to that, I have to say the de-linking of "the market" and "Capitalism" was another big blow for me. It is obvious to me now that these two are not the same, but Graeber does an excellent job demolishing the foundations of received wisdom.
I will likely read this book again at some point, next time in text, not only to highlight some of the excellent lines, but also to try and grasp his judgement on credit. Though he denounces debt and ridicules coinage, he seems to be okay with credit, at least in its traditional "honourable" sense. Certainly he highlights the predatory, but I think I missed his final stance in the audio.
It was a very interesting and informative read, but a somewhat verbose one as well. You don't really have any choice but to read it slowly so you can be sure to take in everything he is saying. He does build to a very interesting theory in the last couple chapters which makes you really think about what is going on in today's society and how we might not, in fact, be so different from our ancient ancestors.
It was a very interesting and informative read, but a somewhat verbose one as well. You don't really have any choice but to read it slowly so you can be sure to take in everything he is saying. He does build to a very interesting theory in the last couple chapters which makes you really think about what is going on in today's society and how we might not, in fact, be so different from our ancient ancestors.
