Debt : The First 5000 Years (Updated and Expanded)

Despite reading many of the reviews, this book was not what I was expecting. I thought the book was about economic debt... it’s not... it’s mainly about psychology of debt. The difference is subtle but interesting. The book is written by an academic for academic philosophers. It’s not intended for the general public, but if you’re prepared to wade through all that heavy language you will not be disappointed. The book is an enormous storeroom of information about social history as seen through the eyes of an anthropologist rather than a historian or an economist. Each reader will extract the bits most useful and ignore the rest. For me the book was about tribal bartering arrangements – the origins of money – why money was created – what is the purpose of money – the psychology of debt as opposed to the economics of debt – why is it considered theft to charge interest on a loan? The book will appeal to cynics who see a world run by evil greedy people and would like to undo the social brainwashing we endure while growing up. The book is an eye opener. The book contains few facts – the conclusions drawn are mostly those of the author. Read and decide for yourself whether the author’s conclusions are correct. The general public will find this book hard work to read but well worth the effort.

I bought this book as a present for my partner. He loves reading. The book arrived in great condition and was well received. My partner said the book was very interesting to read as it's well-written and educational while being engaging.

The book is an exceptional study on the origin of money. However, the book is not about how coinage and cash and banknotes, and the infrastructures around them, evolved. Instead, it's a study on how the concept of money came to be, why, when, and how ancient societies managed to achieve the things that money achieves before money existed. More importantly, it's a study conducted by an anthropologist rather than an economist or a historian. That offers a unique perspective that, to me, is significantly more reliable than anything written by the other two kinds of professionals. It's is a gripping story and a must-read if you are passionate about history or economics. However, the book has an additional, unsupected value for a completely different category of readers. At the time of writing this review, the mainstream audience worldwide starts to learn about cryptocurrencies based on blockchains, NFT-based economies, and many other related concepts that go under the umbrella term of "web3". Among the many criticisms against cryptocurrencies, there are some about the lack of support from the government, the fact that they represent virtual money not pegged to gold, or that the whole system is a giant Ponzi scheme. Without ever referring to cryptocurrencies or other web3 concepts (they were not even on the author's radar at the time of writing), this book is full of surprises that pertain to those technologies. For example, human societies went through alternate phases where they either used credit systems and virtual money or cash based on gold and silver bullions and coins. And virtual money came first. In another example, governments almost always legitimated a new currency (virtual or real) *after* it was being used by private citizens for at least one generation. For these reasons, I believe this book is mandatory for anybody that wants to develop a position on cryptocurrencies, either pro or against them. That said, I have a few recommendations for readers that have yet to start the book: 1. Skip Chapter 1 entirely and read it at the end of the book, after the last chapter and the Afterword. The reason is that in Chapter 1, the author expresses political positions and unveils parts of his personal life that are polarizing and might strongly bias the reader against or in favour of the rest of the content. Once that happens, it will take a long time to regain objectivity and focus on the quality of the work rather than on the author's position. 2. The author tends to digress, which is evident in more than one chapter. In some cases, the digression is necessary to provide a broad and detailed historical, political, and economic context to justify the unfolding of the events. In other cases, it seems that the love for history drives the digression rather than a practical need. The reader will have to make an effort to keep the focus and be patient as the author closes all the loops and makes the key points clear. 3. The last chapter, Chapter 12, feels especially dense compared to the rest of the book, with an exceptional amount of references and names and concepts that the author doesn't fully articulate as in other chapters. At traits, the writing feels rushed or possibly constrained by a certain length. In other moments, it just seems an unnecessary exercise in eloquence. Whatever the reason, most of this chapter will require a leap of faith. The good news is that Chapter 12 is not critical to understanding how money came to be. 4. It's essential to read the Afterword written in 2014. It will give colour to the reasons behind the book and what happened after. As I said before, only at this point makes sense to go back and read Chapter 1. Overall, a 4 out 5 stars. --- How I review books 5 stars - an exceptional book that expands my reasoning, not just my knowledge 4 stars - a great book that significantly expands my knowledge 3 stars - a book with some interesting information and some major flaws that didn't really make an impact in my life. (Notice that there's a time in life for certain books. It's possible that this was not the time for this book, and the review rating would change ten years from now) 2 stars - a book that gave me nothing and took my time. 1 star - a book so poorly written that I couldn't even finish reading.

Perfect. I really enjoy reading it.

Impressive scholarship from an anthropological point of view.

This is one of the most important books I have ever read. In fact it has changed my outlook on many things, e.g. God, money, debt. This is not to say that I agree with the author's worldview - I don't. But I do like the way he thinks, or should I say, that he *thinks* at all. (I realise he passed away a few years ago. Our loss!) It's a long book and it took a while to get through it. But I'm very glad I made it. One little quibble. Could the always fascinating endnotes be turned into footnotes next time? Easier to read that way

This book is essential reading for anyone interested in economics and finance, but also all of those who have found themselves burdened with debt. Since ordinary debtors are forced to pay to the last penny, while those who have millions or billions (in debt) keep afloat. The focus is not on financial theory but on actual perception of the meaning of debt over history. And over history the approach has been so different at different times that it is no surprise that we have double or triple standards in this area. And, at the end of the day, brute force determines who is required to pay and who gets off with a slap on the wrist.

This book is a very weird read. There are some parts which are genuinely interesting, particularly in the second half of the book where the author actually tries to present a more or less objective account on the history of debt. Really in almost every chapter there were some worthwhile point being made, even if it was just a single paragraph. In that sense, the liberal in me was forced into cognitive dissonance at times and the author was able to challenge some of my deeply held beliefs. So why the 3 stars? One of the reasons is his chapter on baseline communism, which is just such a load of unsubstantiated rubbish that I could not believe it made it into this book. In fact after forcing my way through half that chapter i just had to move on, as the Author was making further and further reaching arguments all starting from his incredibly blunt assertion that it is not barter that forms the basis of human interaction, but what he calls "baseline communism". Now I am not saying that I believe barter is in fact the core of human interaction, but that is not the problem. For someone who is so precise and literal when criticising the work of his liberal peers, Graeber completely negates these standards when forming his own views. At one point in the chapter I even remember him admitting something along the lines "there is no empirical evidence that my theory is true, but if you just believe me for one second that the basis of all human interaction is indeed baseline communism, then I will show you how well it it explains some of the interactions that happen in everyday world". Such leniency is never given to liberal viewpoints that are continuously critiqued for their lack of empiricism in their core assumptions (such as the "rational agents" assumption that classical economics is based on, and which Graeber hates with a passion because he reads way too much into it). The fact that principle of baseline communism may well describe some interactions or experimental results that classical "barter" model cannot (even though I think it easily can, the Author just kind of decides that they can't), becomes the only argument giving legitimacy to his entire model. I think its pretty obvious that this is a very weak argument and skewed towards his personal ideals, and literarily nothing else. It is unfortunate that this chapter made it into this book, it would be a lot better without it. The second major complaint is the complete inability of the author to get past his anti- liberal viewpoints, which the more he talks about them, the more apparent it becomes that he has a very limited understanding of what they actually are. This results in for example the extensive critique of Adams Smiths ideas which are basically the moment economics as a field of study is created. He greatly overestimates Smiths current impact on classical economists and liberal thought though, and treats every liberal as basically Adam Smith himself. There is no appreciation of the fact that Smith was a revolutionary thinker in every possible sense of the word, that he created a new way of describing reality based on what he thought he observed. In the process Smith of course got some things wrong, which is both obvious and expected. Smith is not much different in that sense from renowned geniuses such as Copernicus, Newton etc.. Copernicus did find a new way to describe the universe and our place in it, but didn't he also have the completely wrong understanding of the movement of planets? Yes he did, but we don't call him foolish or ignorant because of it. I do not understand Graebers contempt for Smith, after all its not his fault humanity has used his ideas to move forward for the next 250 years. The general issue with this attitude becomes one of the straw man argument with regards to actual liberalism. Even though the author is apparently an anarchist, I cannot for the life of me understand how he attempts to reconcile his contempt for government with ultimately very left wing ideas. This is only possible only when in fact his idea of baseline communism would be true. But would I risk finding out by setting up an anarchist society just like Graeber envisions? Never, in fact an anarchist society is probably the one where his vision of baseline communism would get crushed the fastest. The author probably would risk it based on his beliefs, and the very fact that we disagree on such fundamental issues is the very reason why such a society is destined to fail. There is much less agreement between different individuals than Graeber is willing to admit, and arguments that he presents for his case are nowhere near adequate to justify such drastic change of our current pseudo- liberal economies. I say pseudo- liberal economies because even though the current mainstream thought wants to portray modern economic systems as liberal, and the economic crisis as the failure of liberal and capitalist thought, current economic systems have very little to do with actual liberalism. People seem to forget that liberal thought is against monopolies and lobbying, against unfair competition and tax evasion like multinationals do, government bailouts and many other practices which are for some reason ascribed too be at the very core of capitalism. They are not, and in fact all these things which the society seems to be rebelling against are in fact the produce of large and overly engaged government. I suppose this is the one area where we could agree with the author (given his anarchistic ideals), however his notion of what liberalism is seems to be more consistent with sensationalistic media portrayal of it rather than any actual ideals represented by more of the educated liberals. For anyone who strongly disagrees with liberal ideologies, including mister Graeber, i strongly recommend The Road to Serfdom by Hayek. There is quite some irony when reading this liberal credo almost 80 years from its publication date, and seeing just how relevant it is at this very moment, even though it was written during World War II. It is a political book, as Hayek openly admits, but so is Debt: the first 5000 years, except Graeber doesn't want to admit it. But don't be fooled- underneath the thin coat of science and controlled experiments, what lies is nothing but Graebers imagination that is made to fit some of the data, without any actually scientific or really any basis. If you ever want to challenge your socialist ideals, like I wanted to challenge my liberal ones with this book, read the Road to Serfdom and try to find a way out from its damning conclusions. I am still looking. All that said, id still recommend this book to someone interested in the history of money. It presents an interesting perspective on the matter, and you will probably come out more informed than from most other books on the subject. But to someone who is a bit more engaged in economic systems and has got a thorough understanding of liberalism and classical economics, it may be hard to get past the straw man argument bias.