Debt: The first 5000 years -PB

Graeber spins forth a version of history that is lesser known to us novitiates of capitalism. Brings into question a lot of the myth and assumptions that we operate on. Definitely recommend to anyone who is wondering how the world is so broken.

This should be a must read for any educated person who has interests on history, polity, economy of human civilization. All of our history and economy has to be reviewed and reconsidered along with anthropological studies. Furthermore this is a must read for left thinkers who are dogmatized by so called state capitalism.

The book itself it very good but the paper and font are not. Very small font that is not suitable for older people.

Any book on history has to contend with the problem that facts are difficult and interpretation even more so. In this fascinating book, David Graeber presents us with what is known about the origin of money, suggests what may be problematic about this knowledge, gives his interpretation of the knowledge, and leaves enough room for us to make our own conclusions. I found the book exciting, insightful and full of ideas for taking civilization forward.

See the world in a different view.

Very good book full of financial info.s supplying people with a barrage of knowledge of financial history...

David Graeber's (DG) magnificent work is, somewhat prohibitively titled "Debt". In fact the book provides an excellent coverage of history money, markets, role of states, practices in early societies and of course- debt. It's no secret that Modern Economics, a myth / fiction long celebrated by non-intellectuals (i.e. all neoclassical economists, especially those who've recently "won" Nobel prizes), is based on false assumptions, shaky foundations, religious zealotry and bears almost no resemblance to reality (theories are "validated" ex-post). It has long been rejected by scientists and philosophers alike as no more than an elaborate story told to compel masses to behave in a certain manner; which is no different than religious texts that told of biblical/epic accounts to serve the same ends. Anthropologists, along with other group of scientists, have over the decades provided enormous evidence to falsify modern economic theory.Dr.Graeber compiles all the important findings to systematically examine, reflect and validate the claims made on the origins of aforementioned ideas and conclusively demonstrates that the ponzi scheme labeled "modern ('free') market economy" was founded on deception, coercion and has unmistakably run its course.To (very) broadly summarize:1) The author clearly and consistently refutes the oft told story of how money came into existence: that money was invented to replace barter. In all of human history there is no evidence of barter economies existing at any point in time; hence the idea (there are some economists who foolishly even label it "theory") that money was invented to replace barter is baseless. Even economists (Stiglitz, Krugman, Samuelson etc.) agree there's no reason to believe in existence of barter economies, but acknowledge they use the narrative as an illustrative concept. DG shows that what is benignly labeled as illustrative concept, is soon, by the sleight of hand, turned by economists into something that extols the benefits of token money; benefits, which are, available even in the absence of token money. This is further used as the basis to tell the tale of debt following token money, when precisely, the opposite is true.2) DG outlines the workings of "human economies": ancient practices where (monetary) transactions were centred on needs of people of a society rather than, as today, people being (re)arranged to serve the needs of monetarist system; a practice which effectively precludes the needs the people from coming to the forefront of the debate. As most people (who've studied economics) are presented with idea that "what's good for the markets, is good for the people" argument, the concept of human economies, can only be appreciated once we learn the difference between market and people; this DG clearly provides. Here, I can suggest, as a quick point to those who are brainwashed by economists to think of them as the same to think about how DJIA has floated near all-time high for years but the unemployment rate, even after "recalculations", has remained around 14 million in the US; or how EZ is struggling even as FIs make near record profits.3) The true magnificence of this work lies in the clarity with which the author illuminates the deep connection between human reciprocity, morality, duty, love and, the role of violence in equating these innately positive attributes to a measurable quantity called debt. Over the centuries, through the use of coercion, violence, propaganda and human submissiveness the idea of (monetary) debt has been twisted to elicit a sense of sin, guilt and failure in oneself and others. An equivalence that helps states and elites extract products of society with remarkable consistency.Although some of the ideas, such as modern economists playing the role of (ancient) priests who provide "academic" or intellectual basis -most unbeknownst to themselves- for furthering the agenda of those in power has widely been known (see "Economics As Religion" by R Nelson), DG's compendium is an extraordinary platform to bring it all together. It is that which makes this, his magnum opus.

Print quality is very very bad. It looks like the printer ran out of ink. Either that or this is a fake print book like the ones sold in traffic signals. Extremely disappointed.

Conforme

One of the very best books I have read. Sheds a bright light on the origines of the economy and the fairy tales that surround it. Brillant! I love the anthropologist perspective; the way debt has evolved through small family clans to modern society. I have to admit that, having researched the "economist" ways of managing natural resources and the "unlimited growth" paradigm (in a finite world, this is quite a bite to chew for an engineer), my understanding is that the economy has very little place for actually putting theories to the test... In science, theories are thought up, tested in practice and if they fail, well you've learned something! In economy it seems to me the theory just has to make sense.. and there it is, it must be that way things work... And just look at how it "works"!This is a very nice complement to any research on the "mechanics" of economy that, in the end, are quite drab readings, and usually offer an incomplete perspective since the basic nature of economy is in fact social(no I'm not a socialist!!) through human exchange. I highly recommend this reading to anyone curious of how our world works... Also read Zarlenga.BTW, nothing particularely marxiste, communist (except the fact the we, as humans do share "common" riches... and no I'm not a communist for using the word common!), this is a perticular and interesting view and has been cited in a white paper by economists from the IMF (... damn commies!) ;)

Ein tolles Buch, unglaublich unterhaltsam, anekdotenreich und überhaupt nicht trocken (jedenfalls nur so trocken, wie es bei Sachbüchern nun mal notwendig ist).Hinterher versteht man viele Dinge sehr viel besser und man sollte sich auch nicht vom Umfang abschrecken lassen. Leute mit wenig Zeit können den Mittelteil des Buches überspringen, da dieser historische Beispiele enthält, die zwar ungemein interessant sind, aber für die Argumentation nicht zwingend erfolderlich, sondern eben Fallbeispiele bieten.

As most of the other reviewers have noted, this is a brilliant and revolutionary book. The author has synthesized a great deal of information from anthropology, history and economics over 5,000 years to come up with a compelling and original account of debt. The accomplishment is even greater, because he makes clear that debt is intimately related to money, capitalism, war and slavery; so understanding debt will change your view of all these things.The bad news is the author made some inexplicable choices that may cause many readers to discount or misunderstand the book. The first is to continually emphasize abusive practices associated with debt: predatory or fraudulent lending, debt for consumption, debtors' prison and enslavement for debt. Only on the edges of the story, usually under the term "commercial debt," will you see what a debt defender would emphasize: informed and non-desperate parties agreeing voluntarily to a contract in which the lender supplies funds to buy assets expected to return more than the interest rate on the debt, and agrees that if the venture fails she will own the remaining assets but have no personal recourse against the borrower. If the venture succeeds, the lender gets repaid with interest and the borrower gets any additional profit as compensation for his efforts. If the venture fails, the lender takes a loss (or at least gets a lower rate of return than would compensate for the risk) and the borrower has nothing to show for his work. No courts, no violence.Someone might argue that the violent practices are inherent to debt and abusive loans are far more common than loans of mutual advantage. But the author doesn't argue this. Anyway, the points would be irrelevant to his thesis. The book discusses the fundamental idea of debt and the conclusions apply equally to the best and worst loans. There is a lurid focus on the most egregious actions related to debt, in most cases of which debt merely provides some euphemistic terms for violence and robbery (like a carjacker "borrowing" your car or a bully "paying back" your imagined insult with a punch). I found the material exaggerated and unconvincing. Terrible things have been done in the name of debt, but the book presented little evidence that the terrible things wouldn't have been done anyway, nor was there any attempt to weigh the amount of debt abuse against the amount of mutual benefit from legitimate debt. The material is likely to mislead casual readers into thinking this is a hysterical anti-debt screed when it is in fact a brilliant and subtle examination of the nature of society.Even more important is a key omission. Nowhere does the author mention the most important point about money and credit--that they stimulate extraordinary technological and cultural change. No nonspecialist would care about Neolithic exchange practices if they hadn't revolutionized humanity with the adoption of agriculture, permanent settlements, technological change and long-distance trade networks. The Athenian owl coin would be a minor curiosity except that it ended thousands of years of civilizations rising and falling leaving little behind but crumbling ruins and dead language texts. Every society that joined the money web since has had its language and technology preserved for other societies to build upon. This did not lead to steady progress but it did lead, for the first time in human history, to progress. Paper money in Reformation Europe led to technologies that conquered the world, and not just militarily.Whether you like that progress is another matter. Or you may feel we could have had the progress without all the evils associated with money and debt--even that money and debt were effects not causes of the changes. Regardless, leaving technological progress out of the story makes an unbalanced account.Finally, one of the author's key points is that debt can have the effect of ripping a person out of social context to be treated as a source of repayment rather than a friend, neighbor, son and so on. This is a brilliant point, well-argued and important. But it has an obverse side the author misrepresents. Some people run away from traditional societies and small towns for the anonymity of a city. They shed what they consider the burdens of social ties to create and join less personal organizations. Debt in its quantified and impersonal form was undoubtedly created by these types of people.The author treats social refugees as either evil or deluded. If unsuccessful, they are caught in a debt trap that destroyed everything of meaning in their lives. If successful, they are addicted to the pursuit of money, which cannot buy them happiness. In fact, many people have at least some tendencies in these directions at some points in their lives. Some are mainly escaping intolerable or suffocating situations. Others are looking for excitement and adventure. Or they may want to pursue ideas that require wider contacts (and therefore relatively impersonal and rational human relations) than their traditional social ties can provide. Not everyone who flees the family farm is after world domination or mindless stockpiling of gold. You'd think someone who didn't understand this would spend his time arguing with his friends and teaching his children, not writing a book.This is a great book, but it could reach a wider audience if the author spent less time bashing creditors (and Europeans, if anything bad happens in the book and a European male is within a hundred years and a thousand miles of it, you know who will get the blame) and more serious time on the people who like debt and the changes they cause in the world. Perhaps he disputes the conventional views of these things, in fact I think that's a near certainty, but ignoring them makes his insights hard to connect with anything else.

Una obra de lectura mas que recomendable en estos iempos que corren. Ofrece una interesante prespectiva de la deuda; con rigor, crudeza y lejos de cualquier discurso "economicista"