Debt - Updated and Expanded: The First 5,000 Years

That’s the best short summary of this book. It has a great many good ideas, but they’re buried in such rank BS that I cannot recommend it to anybody who doesn’t already know a great deal about the subject. If you are willing to accept everything in this book as truthful, then you will be badly misled. If you can see past the many mistakes, then there’s some useful content.The first few chapters demolish the decrepit notion that money was invented to grease the wheels of commerce by making it easier to break transactions down into manageable pieces. If you wanted to barter for a horse, you’d need to find something very expensive that the seller wanted in order to make the deal. If the seller didn’t happen to want a hundred bushels of barley, you couldn’t close a deal. But by making transactions in a standard medium — money — the deal could work because the seller would always be certain that the money he got from you would be usable for some other transaction involving property that the seller *did* want.That was the standard textbook explanation of the development of money for many years. My impression is that historians never took it very seriously; there were just too many real-world complexities to confute that explanation. But Mr. Graeber assaults the explanation furiously. He offers a different explanation: debt as a social construct. Here he is dead right: small-scale societies do indeed rely on debt as a means for regulating transactions between people. Transactions do not have to be immediately symmetric: Fred can give Mary something today, and she can acknowledge a debt that she pays off at some later date. The system is powerful, simple to implement, and flexible.While Mr. Graeber delves deeply into the concepts of debt in small-scale societies, he is apparently unaware of three crucial facts that control the operation of debt in such societies.The first of these is Dunbar’s Number: the number of people with whom you can maintain a stable relationship. This was elucidated by Robin Dunbar in the 1990s; when comparing the sizes of social groups of various primates with their brain sizes, he found a rough correlation which, when applied to Homo Sapiens, suggests that our ideal social group should consist of about 150 people. We seem to have a natural proclivity to cluster in groups of about 150 people. Above that number, we have difficulty keeping track of all the various social relationships.Keeping track of debt relationships in such a group is easy enough, and Mr. Graeber adduces lots of evidence of such groups utilizing debt systems to manage economic relationships among people. What he doesn’t realize — and this is a huge blunder on his part — is that such debt systems start to break down when the economic group exceeds 150 people. Indeed, once an economic grouping exceeds a thousand people, the personal debt systems that Mr. Graeber extols are completely useless.The second fact the Mr. Graeber misses is the power of “cheater detection” in human social relationships. There has been plenty of research on this topic, and the phenomenon is well-established. It demonstrates that people are especially sensitive to debt violations, which makes enforcement of debt systems more reliable — but only in the context of small groups where pre-existing social relationships are in place.The third fact that Mr. Graeber misses is the intermediate role played by “money of account”. This is a standard term from economics that I cannot recall Mr. Graeber using, but he dances all around the concept. Money of account is an imaginary form of money that is used only to keep track of debts. For example, the shekel was an ancient unit of weight (about 11 grams) that predated coinage. Long before any coins were in use, the shekel of silver or gold was used as a money of account. For example, consider some of Hammurabi’s Laws:201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina.203. If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina.204. If a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten shekels in money.208. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.These were written around 1750 BC, a thousand years before coins were invented, yet they reference weights of precious metals as payments. Shekels of precious metals constituted “money of account” — which was invented before coins were invented. Yet Mr. Graeber never directly addresses the use of money of account, preferring to impose his hypothesis that all economic transactions were conducted via debt systems.There’s a much better explanation of how money developed. Small-scale societies did indeed rely on debt mechanisms, as Mr. Graeber correctly points out. However, once civilization developed and economic systems embraced more than a few hundred people, debt was confined to sub-societies within the larger societies. Inside a village, debt systems continued to play the dominant role in economic relationships, and it continues to play that role even today in small-scale social clusters.But in larger economic units, debt relationships could not be enforced, and such groups developed an alternate system based on the one commodity that was universally valued: metals. Metal of any kind was useful for such a wide range of applications; it didn’t rot or wear, and it was small enough to be easily transportable. Thus, metals became the money of account for civilizations the world over.Mr. Graeber refuses to recognize this simple explanation. Instead, he offers an absurd explanation for the development of money: nasty militaristic tyrants invented money to pay their soldiers, permitting them to build huge armies with which to wage imperialistic wars. They then required taxes to be paid in coinage so that they could keep the money flowing and the armies fighting.Anybody with any knowledge of history should ask, “How did the Hittites, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Medes, etc pay their armies before 700 BC, when coinage was invented?” The existence of large armies fighting imperialistic wars before the invention of coinage blows Mr. Graeber’s explanation right out of the water.Then there are the many, many historical bloopers; my copy of the book bristles with little note-tags marking the pages containing factual errors. For example, on page 214 of the paperback edition, Mr. Graeber claims that the Mesopotamian system using hollow balls called bullae were a form of IOU to record debt obligations. He claims that clay tablets were sealed inside the bullae. How he could make such a blunder escapes me. The contents of the bullae were not clay tablets, they were clay shapes representing various commodities: bushels of barley, sheep, oxen, etc). They were not records of debt, they were bills of lading. The Mesopotamians had to solve the classic problem of preventing goods from disappearing during shipment from farm to temple. If a farmer’s annual taxes were, say, thirty bushels of barley, then the tax agent went to the farm, collected the grain, and, in the presence of the farmer, sealed three pyramidal clay tokens (representing the thirty bushels of barley) inside a hollow bulla and placed his own identifying mark on the exterior. When the cart carrying the grain reached the temple, the accountant there could check the contents of the bulla against the contents of the cart.On pages 225 - 227 Mr. Graeber mangles history. According to him, all the metals were squirreled away in temples and ornaments, and then, starting around 800 BC, war erupted all over Eurasia and armies pillaged all that gold and silver, distributing it to the common people. I find it hard to believe that any educated person could swallow this ridiculous nonsense. War is a constant of human history; there were plenty of wars long before 800 BC, and plenty of temples were looted.He then goes on to declare that these wars provided the impetus for the development of markets. I am at a loss for a suitable imprecation to express my reaction to this absurd claim. Markets existed long before 800 BC. It’s true that international trade grew during that period, but it had grown long before then, and continued to grow long afterwards. The only special development in trade during that time period is the Greek innovation, which I describe here.Here’s another howler on page 226:“The period when the Greeks began to use coinage, for instance, was also the period when they developed their famous phalanx tactics, which required constant drill and training of the hoplite soldiers.”First, there is no direct connection between the development of coinage and the development of the phalanx; it is a mere coincidence, as anybody with a knowledge of military history can tell you. Moreover, the ‘constant drill and training’ is just plain wrong: hoplites were citizen-soldiers. Hasn’t Mr. Graeber even read the Phaedo, in which Socrates refers to his participation in the Battle of Delium, where he saved the life and armor of Alcibiades? And no, Socrates was never a professional soldier.On page 227, Mr. Graeber refers to Athens as an aggressive military power rather than a great trading nation. { snorts of disbelief } Athens was the pre-eminent trading nation of the Greek world; its military power was an effect of its trading power. Why do you think that the Athenians extended their Long Walls from Athens all the way to the Piraeus, the port of Athens six miles away from the city?On page 293 Mr. Graeber manages to demonstrate ignorance of two different topics in a single discussion. His explanation of the development of the Arthurian romances is, to say the least, garbled. At the same time, he dismisses knights as mere gangs of armed robbers, when in fact the mounted man-at-arms was the centerpiece of all warfare in Middle Age Christendom. The Crusades were led by knights; all the major battles of the period were fought with knights as the core force. He also manages to screw up the history of the Fourth Crusade. Reading his version, I did not at first recognize the Fourth Crusade; only after he mentioned Byzantium (which he misnames Constantinople) did I recognize what he was talking about.On page 296 he comes up with the screwiest explanation of the Grail story that I have ever read. Many scholars think that the Grail derives from ancient Celtic mythology of a kind of cornucopia; others think that it is derived from the Christian sacrement of holy communion. If only Mr. Graeber had taken the time to look it up on Wikipedia! Sheesh!Here’s yet another glorious blooper, on page 308: In describing the effects of the Black Death, Mr. Graeber writes “…whole cities went bankrupt, defaulting on their bonds…” Very few cities in the 14th century were corporations. Many were ruled by a tyrant, and the tyrant may have gone bankrupt. Others were run by oligarchies. Yes, they all had their own treasuries, but these were never substantial components of the economy. More important, there were no municipal bonds back then; the first municipal bond was issued by the city of Amsterdam in 1517.As he comes closer to modern times, Mr. Graeber drifts off into Cloud-Cuckoo Land, describing a world in which evil bankers, merchants, and governments conspire to cheat the population. Here’s a representative example of his fevered imagination at work:“What really caused the inflation is that those who ended up in control of the bullion — governments, bankers, large-scale merchants — were able to use that control to begin changing the rules, first by insisting that gold and silver *were* money, and second by introducing new forms of credit-money for their own use while slowly undermining and destroying the local systems of trust that had allowed small-scale communities across Europe to operate largely without the use of metal currency.”Golly gee, if all those evil people were responsible for defining gold and silver as money, howcum people long beforehand were using gold and silver as money? And how does continuing a tradition several thousand years old constitute “changing the rules”?As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Graeber refuses to recognize the fact that economies were extending their range through trade. As the world became more tightly integrated economically, the small-scale economic systems that he prefers were made obsolete. He bemoans that development. Does he realize that a small-scale village of a few hundred people cannot manufacture steel, glass, or any of the products of the modern world? Economic integration permits the specialization that makes it possible to provide smartphones so cheaply.After page 330, Mr. Graeber goes so far off into the ozone that I lost interest in reading his rants. He is a romantic who longs for the good old days when everybody lived in tiny self-sufficient villages, everybody knew and trusted each other, there was no money to corrupt their souls, and everybody enjoyed the simple life. I hope he finds that life for himself. I will point out, however, that without money and loans and interest and banks and publishers and all the other paraphernalia of modern economic systems, he would not be able to carry on his research, teaching, and writing. He’d be too busy hoeing the weeds on his farmland.

Graeber's book is a long, slow read, yet it is a fascinating page-turner for which I enjoyed EVERY SINGLE PAGE. I would highly recommend this five-star book to anyone who enjoys investigating the mysteries of economics in our modern world and to anyone who enjoys history, sociology, anthropology, or looking for major historical trends which tie together and explain world events.I saw a few critical reviews while reading this book, and now that I have finished, my opinion is that anyone who negatively reviews this book only read a portion of it. Most of the critical reviews are dismissive of his "point-of-view" as being "wrong." However, anyone who has actually read the whole book realizes that he has stepped back and looked at these issues from multiple perspectives and through the lens of multiple disciplines. People who are upset by this book (or by the introductory chapters) are upset because today's economics teaching focuses only on a small piece of the "economics thought pie" (my term) which is out there. Graeber steps out into discussing pieces which are less covered (or not covered at all) in typical economics classes in the West of today. So, rather than reading through his arguments, and seeing where they wind up by reading the whole book, I am certain these people gave up only part-way into the book, and then wrote a negative review because the ideas are different (much wider and more complicated) than they have been taught, and they find it "out of their paradigm" and just can't accept reading further. Yet, anyone should be able to read alternative ideas that challenge traditional ideas in order to see if their beliefs really stand up under scrutiny.So much information is packed into Debt: The First 5,000 Years, that it could easily have been written as five separate stand-alone books. As an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, Graeber wrote a massive, sprawling history of debt, credit, and the development of markets and money; he ties it to war, slavery, taxes, tribute, government bureaucracy, religious thought, and both local and international trade, by looking at societies from ancient Mesopotamia, to India, to China, to ancient Greece and Rome, to Latin America, to the Middle Ages, and to the Modern Ages.Why did he do it this way? Several reasons. First, as an anthropologist, he felt he was in a unique position to help us completely rethink our sense of the rhythms of economic history. Economists and historians, he points out, normally come at history in opposite directions. "Economists tend to come at history with their mathematical models--and the assumptions about human nature that come along with them--already in place: it's largely a matter of arranging the data around equations. Historians .....often refuse to extrapolate at all; in the absence of direct evidence.....they will not ask whether it is reasonable to make (certain) assumptions....this is why we have so many "histories of money" that are actually histories of coinage....Anthropologists, in contrast, are empirical--they don't just apply preset models--but they also have such a wealth of comparative material at their disposal they CAN actually speculate about what village assemblies in Bronze Age Europe or credit systems in ancient China were likely to be like. And they can reexamine the evidence to see if it confirms or contradicts their assessment." Second, as a admirer of French anthropologist Marcel Mauss, by writing this book, Graeber feels he has put to rest the real "pet peeve" of anthropologists everywhere--the myth of barter. I found this a shocking idea when introduced to it at the beginning of the book, but he has really convinced me as a reader through his extensive and comprehensive looks at every possible facet of this question.I will try to summarize in one paragraph the large sweeping ideas covered in this book. What is money, really? What determines what gets used as money, and why? Certain historical ages operated on mutual credit systems, with practically no coinage at all in circulations (for hundreds or even thousands of years at a time); other ages operated with coin made out of various precious metals. What were the differences between the types of ages when these different types of systems occurred in societies around-the-world, and what were the causes of these differences? Historically, when did these various ages occur, and why? What is happening now, and is the current situation in the world changing? We seem to have recently entered a new age of credit, but in many ways, completely unlike past ages of credit, with historical trends now completely reversed between creditors and debtors compared to past credit ages. How does war and slavery factor into all of this? What is capitalism and how did it come about? Does it really work as it claims to? What are the problems and myths associated with capitalism? What does faith and credit in government and society mean, and what has it meant throughout all historical ages around-the-world? These are just a few of the book's largest questions.Now I will touch on what this book meant to me personally. As an American living overseas in North Africa, I really enjoyed his discussion of how credit was handled during the Middle Ages in Europe, with most people living on credit in regards to each other. It reminded me of the system we even continue to use in North Africa, even in cities, with the merchants at the corner stores (which are our societal equivalents of 7-11 stores). Each family has a notebook which they bring with them to the store each time they want to purchase something. The merchant notes it in the book, and accounts are settled up at the end of the month. Without cash or coin available to most of the populace in the European Middle Ages, everyone operated on such bases with their neighbors, everyone kept accounts, and accounts were settled up in the whole village once or twice a year, usually at specific times or festivals. I found this really interesting. Many such examples from the book meant something to me in my own life, but they would be too numerous to list here.The price of this paperback was one for which I got more than my money's worth, many times over, for the many pleasurable hours of reading, and all I learned, in a highly-enjoyable and extremely well-written text. I wish I could sit in on David Graeber's class. Be prepared--you will want to discuss this book with friends, so try to get a friend or a book club group to read it with you.

Metallism denotes carrying around coins of a certain value as a fungible tool in barter. Coins are thought to grease the wheels of commerce in an already existing barter economy. Chartalism is the marketing of IOU and other debt instruments as a medium of exchange in an economy absent barter. This book is an eye opener in that the author claims that money preceded a barter economy throughout human history. Money itself is said to be entirely a creation of government by the chartalist. The author needs to be told that ¨it is never any one thing.¨ Better to thank the author for writing this book and enjoy it. It is OK to agree with the facts, logic, and conclusions of the author and still disagree with communism. Other authors believe that the current economic climate hasn't been seen for three thousand years when the bronze age ended bronze as a medium of exchange and the world-wide economy crashed. So a historical perspective looking back five thousand years is not inappropriate.

O livro é bom. Traz um ponto de vista antropologico da moeda e do credito. Graeber tem um estilo de escritura muito bom. tem bastantes provocaçoes inteligentes no livro, mesmo se ele ter um viés esquerda bastante forte, é um intelectual que vale a pena ler, e com provocaçoes interessantes.As 3 estrelas é por que digamos 20% do livro pega essa narrativa questionavel de esquerda (e de alguns livros de geopolitica) de definir grupos de individuos e criar uma ilusão que esse grupo é uma entidade consciente com uma moralidade propia e intencionalidade como se for um individuo: tipo "os comerciantes", "os bancários", "os propietarios de terras"... e ai ele se inventa "lutas de clases" na cabeça dele. Evaluando essa "luta de clases" com o ponto de vista ultra-progressista (que é uma evoluçao 100% occidental e da tradiçao cristiana) mas para falar mal do occidente, como se for uma "cultura errada".Mas fora disso, o livro é bom como documento historico, e mostra como o credito e a moeda evoluiram como tecnologia no contexto historico dado pelo comercio, as guerras, as religões, estruturas sociais etc.

Great insightful book, although it came a bit damagedToo much of a hassle to ask for reinbursement tho

An eye-opening account of history that turns so many things on its head, I thought I was at Cirque du Soleil

THOUGHT-PROVOKING AND BRILLIANT.

Vai fundo, capaz de virar convicções ao avesso. Visão clara, honesta, de antropólogo. Indispensável, especialmente para economistas com eventual poder de decidir o que fazer da atual mixórdia.ADENDO em 16.12.2021Onde está a Introdução de Thomas Picketty anunciada na capa ?