Sign in with Facebook
Katia N's Reviews > Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
by
by
I meant to read "Debt" for a while, but so happens I've listened to this book. So my takes are very preliminary. I still need to read it properly. I've enjoyed Graeber's anthropological perspective, erudition and the fluency of his arguments. Also I've never read anything serious by a self-acknowledged anarchist. He has made a lot if interesting original points that go against the grail of the well-defined narrative of social and economic history. And it is refreshing to say the least.
My main takes:
1) The big chunk of the book is devoted to the premise that debt preceded barter as the initial basis of economic activity. I need to go through his chain of arguments and the evidence once more. It is great he argues so persuasively. But I am not sure how much it matters for us as now debt is definitely presiding.
2) Adam Smith has imagined an utopia how the economy works. But this utopia has become our reality at least partly because many people read his book. This is very interesting though not totally convincing. But I would know whom to blame just in case:-)
3) Graeber has devoted a big chapter discussing the assumptions about moral economy and human nature: self-interest vs communism (not in a classical but in the ethical sense). This is the core to understand the people's motivations in economic activity. I definitely need more time with this chapter to see how ground-breaking his thinking is, but it is good he challenges both motives as an extreme.
4) According to Graeber, to function properly, capitalism has to encourage an apocalyptic thinking and the idea that it would end eventually. As soon as people start to believe that a party could continue forever, a very real crisis hits. Example - market crush speculations from Tulip's War to 2007 recession. Again it is a very profound thought and it does makes sense. However I need to read him properly to understand the implications he thinks about.
5) The most optimistic bit of the book that there is alway alternative how a society operates according to Graeber. And it is only limited by our collective imagination. So he suggest not to limit it.
Whether I would agree with him or not, it is a very well written, persuasive and simply interesting book looking at the long global history. Not many thinkers achieved that much. It is a shame he is not with us any more.
My main takes:
1) The big chunk of the book is devoted to the premise that debt preceded barter as the initial basis of economic activity. I need to go through his chain of arguments and the evidence once more. It is great he argues so persuasively. But I am not sure how much it matters for us as now debt is definitely presiding.
2) Adam Smith has imagined an utopia how the economy works. But this utopia has become our reality at least partly because many people read his book. This is very interesting though not totally convincing. But I would know whom to blame just in case:-)
3) Graeber has devoted a big chapter discussing the assumptions about moral economy and human nature: self-interest vs communism (not in a classical but in the ethical sense). This is the core to understand the people's motivations in economic activity. I definitely need more time with this chapter to see how ground-breaking his thinking is, but it is good he challenges both motives as an extreme.
4) According to Graeber, to function properly, capitalism has to encourage an apocalyptic thinking and the idea that it would end eventually. As soon as people start to believe that a party could continue forever, a very real crisis hits. Example - market crush speculations from Tulip's War to 2007 recession. Again it is a very profound thought and it does makes sense. However I need to read him properly to understand the implications he thinks about.
5) The most optimistic bit of the book that there is alway alternative how a society operates according to Graeber. And it is only limited by our collective imagination. So he suggest not to limit it.
Whether I would agree with him or not, it is a very well written, persuasive and simply interesting book looking at the long global history. Not many thinkers achieved that much. It is a shame he is not with us any more.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Debt.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
October 11, 2021
–
Started Reading
November 3, 2021
– Shelved
November 3, 2021
– Shelved as:
economics-and-history
November 3, 2021
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jan-Maat
(new)
Nov 03, 2021 12:15PM
I think his point about debt preceeding barter and cash is certainly true - we see it historically in all states when the money supply was limited and even the smallest value coin has large purchasing power. E.g. in England in the 1170s one penny could buy an adult's Labour for a day so the smallest coin was worth about £70.00 in today's money! Practically everyone would have dealt in credit and debt and just used cash occasionally to settle up.
reply
|
flag
In addition to Jan-Maat: don’t forget everything probably started back in prehistoric times with reciprocal gift exchange and imbalances that could lead to possible debt. Did Graeber cover that too?
Jan-Maat wrote: "I think his point about debt preceeding barter and cash is certainly true - we see it historically in all states when the money supply was limited and even the smallest value coin has large purchas..."He talks about pre-history, Jan. Something like 5000 years before onwards. So any speculations are possible about that period. He is basing his discussion partly on modern anthropology and partly on Sumerian records where it was indeed debt economy.
Then, he divides the history on 4 periods (that is as far as I remember as I dod not make any notes and was walking all the time I listened:-)). Roughly Debt economy - metal money economy that is ancient Empires including China, India and Rome; Again debt economy - Middle Ages ; Metal - the age of discovery up to the 70s of the 20s century. Now - hard to say but not metal:-) He thinks it might take a few hundred years until we figure what is now:-) But he is optimistic based upon the fact that we could shape it.
Also he says the time of metal/paper money always comes with the war and other forms of violence.
The question about what was the starting point would not be relevant if not the theory that money does not matter as only real economy is for real exchange of goods. Money are just means of exchange and all has started from farther. Smith said so as well. So money was often excluded from economic models. But I personally still think it is irrelevant now when money do not have any backing anyway and they do matter:-)
Marc wrote: "In addition to Jan-Maat: don’t forget everything probably started back in prehistoric times with reciprocal gift exchange and imbalances that could lead to possible debt. Did Graeber cover that too?"Thank you, Marc. Yes he starts from this premise and gives a lot of examples. He more or less starts where Mauss leaves it in The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. He also talks something he calls human economy and describes how debt as a moral category evolved there or actually the impossibility of it:-)
I am sure you would enjoy reading it. It is very entertaining and deals with long history I know you've had a project about. It gets a bit less detailed and more polemical to the end. But one would expect so. That is why I want to read it properly to get to the level of details I missed listening.
You probablly heard but his last book in cooperation with an archeologist has been just published. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. They re-visit prehistory there and rebuke Harari, Diamond, Pinker and the like:-) Should be interesting as well.
Katia wrote: "Marc wrote: "In addition to Jan-Maat: don’t forget everything probably started back in prehistoric times with reciprocal gift exchange and imbalances that could lead to possible debt. Did Graeber c..."Thanks for the tip, Katia. I'm going to check it out!
Jan-Maat wrote: "I think his point about debt preceeding barter and cash is certainly true - we see it historically in all states when the money supply was limited and even the smallest value coin has large purchas..."You must be joking. XII century England? XII century is a modern age. Barter system can be seen already among animals. Monkeys have pretty good values system. They can compare values of different kinds of food. Animals already have food priorities. They exchange food for services or sex pretty well.
