A fascinating review of the role of debt in creating the society that we currently live in. Through storytelling Graeber makes complex economic themes memorable and comprehensible to non-economists. ( )

I was reading it for a month. It went tought, but I persisted, unearthing every now an then a nugget or two of incomparable wisdom. I'm an athropologist, so I may be biased, but...if you're short of time, read first pages on refutation of the barter idyll, and then fast forward on to the last chapter, conclusion and the afterword. Your world will never be the same again. No kiddin'. ( )

An excellent, highly readable history of debt, our conceptions of it and how it has affected our entire political life. Has a LOT of stories and anecdotes and stuff from various times in history. Skimpy on some details but that's inevitable when you're doing such a wide ranging history and he always says enough to illustrate his point. I disagree with some of the stuff he says from a Marxist perspective but it's not totally shit - it's just I think he does the typical anarchist thing of ascribing changes to an amorphous "state." Ultimately though I thoroughly enjoyed it. A radical book that does a great job of challenging our preconceived notions of economics and what's "natural", pointing the way towards radical change and providing a fascinating historical primer along the way. ( )

The author, an anthropologist, teaches a very large amount about the origins of money and the history of debt. It is eye-opening, partly because he also teaches a lot of history of peoples from many other times. He is stunningly knowledgeable about many areas. I was absorbed by this book and will read others of his. ( )

A bizarre mix of provocative evidence, absurd statements, wild speculations and exaggerated conclusions!

The first few chapters are dedicated to arguing that money originated as a unit of accounting for debts, and not as a valuable commodity acting as a unit of exchange to facilitate barter of goods, until in chapter 4 we are suddenly told that, after all, it's "obvious" that money is both these things!

Indeed, why would Sumerian accountants have used the silver shekel as a unit of account equivalent to a bushel of barley, if a silver shekel could not be exchanged for a bushel of barley? It must have been so, if for no other reason than that, if a silver shekel was worth one bushel of barley in the granary books, and worth half a bushel in the marketplace, a merchant could sell half a bushel in the market for a single shekel that would be credited to him as worth a whole bushel for tax purposes!

Villagers living cheek by jowl at the origin of money could indeed record who owed whom what; Graeber denies that this accounting of debt constituted barter though. Yet what did the baker originally expect to receive from the brewer in payment of his debt, if not beer, a useful commodity, or at least a beer-token or beer-credit? Surely the point of an IOU is that one owes a certain value, and this value would originally have to be stipulated as an amount of some useful thing, ideally in the most universally useful and easily circulated thing (in prisons, cigarettes; potentially, labour).

What seems to have seduced Graeber into obsessing over money's role as a unit of accounting for debt, rather than as a commodity for facilitating bartering, is simply the issue of time. As he writes, money started in Sumer as an accounting of debt to suppliers "to be settled at harvest time in barley or anything [debtors] might have at hand": so debt was really just a record of valuable commodities owed for payment at a later time! Debt was after all then just barter with a time-lag.

Of course trade between people who did not expect to have a continuous relationship would also naturally have to be settled by items of value to each of them; in circumstances without states or banks this must have been a commodity item: something desirable in itself like gold or cowrie shells, which are ornamental, durable and portable even at relatively high values. With the advent of states, and taxation being required in the form of certain stipulated things, the most natural form of tax was of course at first useful commodities like food delivered to the royal granary, or else commodity money exchangeable for other commodities.

Once states and banks could be relied on to honour them, credit notes could circulate as claims on gold and silver either sitting in banks or as promises to deliver them to the bearer. Later on, paper and electronic money could be detached from conversion into real commodities and continue to function throughout their assigned value as legal tender for paying taxes. But people will actually accept them to a greater or lesser degree (i.e. deflate or inflate their value) according to the more real value of goods and services in circulation: the value of money remains tied to the value of commodities. If the quantity of money available rises faster than the quantity of useful goods, then the price of goods rises and each banknote or electronic credit is worth less in real terms. We still therefore value money according to the amount of commodities it can claim, which is why (as Mike Beggs points out in his review) governments may no longer tie currency to gold, but they tie it instead by means of inflation-targetting to a basket of consumer goods: the value of money in terms of useful goods must be preserved at a reasonably stable level. If banks or the state or shops lost confidence in the ability of money to purchase a stable amount of goods, and demanded cigarettes instead, everybody would revert to commodity money. Which all goes to argue that money must be tied to commodities in order to function as a unit of accounting for debts: it must be a means of facilitating barter to have value for settling debts.

Graeber begins the book wondering why money debts should be paid. The reason surely is that borrowing money is an agreement to exchange values just like any other transaction: give me £1,000 today in exchange for £1,100 next month. One is supposed to keep one's promise to pay, and failure to do so is provided for in the agreed rules of the contract, or in the laws governing debt. Like any other transaction, in a fair society borrowing might be hedged around with rules that protect against exploitation and excessive suffering of defaulters; hence why we have regulations about how and when creditors must or may not be paid back. There is no "sacred principle" that debts must be paid, as Graeber writes: he apparently has not heard of insolvency law, in which creditors will be paid back as much money as can reasonably be generated, without the bankruptees having to enter debt-peonage or sell their children. I don't think we necessarily needed the history of debt this book attempts to give us, in order to answer questions of the ethics of debt-forgiveness. ( )

Great book. ( )

Insights from the first chapter alone is worth knowing about this book. ( )

Very educational and thought-provoking. Anthropological and historical examination of the invention and evolution of debt, touching on money, commerce, slavery, religion, morality, politics, ... Well pretty much everything. Not a perfect book but very readable and the author is certainly honest about his biases so the reader can take them into account. ( )

Well, I was turned off from the first page, where Graeber describes an unnamed woman as "a trim, well-appointed young woman". More specifically, that she "TURNED OUT to be trim, well-appointed young woman". This especially made me feel weird because Father Graeme, who is introduced right before this unnamed woman, isn't described by his physical characteristics... simply as a "gracious and charming host". No statements about HIS rotund belly (that's how I imagined him), etc.

Then he goes on, "As it happened, she didn't actually know what the IMF was, so I offered that the International Monetary Funded basically acted as...". What a kind offering!

Idk, but this seems like a terrible way to start a book, even if this unnamed woman did prompt Graeber to keep considering "why debt?" for weeks after their meeting. Maybe she's named later in the book, but unfortunately I couldn't read past the first chapter because I was deeply annoyed with Graeber's tone. I definitely got some "manic pixie dream girl" vibes from the interaction...

That being said- once I've cooled off I would like to finish the book. Because I did/do want to learn more about this topic. Though if anyone has any other recommendations for books about debt, please comment. ( )

An expansive look back at 5 millennia of institutions' evolution, Debt reveals many surprising–albeit totally coherent–ideological threads woven into the substrate of contemporary society. A shockingly significant contribution to modern "common sense" economic rhetoric has been developed by an endless parade of bickering plutocrats with obvious financial motive to justify their lying, cheating, and thefts.

Our economic (and therefore political) institutions were not born yesterday. They did not spring, fully formed from the heads of a Macro Econ textbook author. Graeber reveals the so-called laws of Economics to be little more than poetry written by con artists. With the same stroke, he impugns the establishments of religion who've acted for centuries as propagandists by spinning tales of cosmic obligations to befuddle a citizenry who might otherwise have kept their good fortunes for themselves. ( )

Very long and poorly edited, but worth the effort! An anthropologist's view of debt and credit, sin and redemption, slavery and freedom, across thousands of years of human history. The main thesis is that there is a long, observable oscillation between credit-based systems and bullion-based systems, the latter of which are characterized by state violence and debt slavery. Enticingly, Graeber points to Nixon's 1971 decision to take the U.S. off the gold standard (in order to finance the Vietnam War) as the close of the last bullion-based epoch, and posits that our current upheavals are indicators that we are in the early phases of conceiving the shape of the next, more humane and less self-annihilating cycle of a credit-based economy. ( )

Wonderful inspiring book, with a different view of the financial world. I loved the last chapter about the end of capitalism. A great historical overview of a neglected subject. ( )

A magisterial examination of the entire concept of economy and human exchange.

One looks at the title and imagines one will be reading about "debt" and the concept thereof. The author certainly does talk about it, but does so in a powerfully profound way, demonstrating how humans have considered themselves indebted to themselves and the world around them and how that was leveraged to exploit and oppress, mostly in the name of war and violence.

The author thoroughly upends the pretenses of modern economics as based on primitive man engaging in barter, demonstrating that debt predates money or any kind of "economic system." Graeber separates out three tiers of engagement which will pervade the study: the "communism" of those in a family, sharing resources as needed; "exchange" of goods or services on the basis of humans as equals, and then "hierarchy," where certain humans get more or less based upon their standing in a given social structure. He shows how debt tends to be conceived of and managed in each sphere.

Most of the book is taken up with a historical analysis of debt and economy. He demonstrates how very little bullion is exchanged at the beginning, with bullion or some other thing accounting for the value of something else - mostly foodstuffs. He points out how slavery is seen as a death in many societies, and that the slave's existence/social credit is chalked up to the possession of the master. He contrasted Sumer and Egypt in terms of debt, the lack thereof in Egypt, and how the suffering of debt in Sumer would lead to prostitution and yet also the need for jubilees lest the people all run off with the tribes and attack.

He showed how the Axial Age changed things for a time - bullion made into money in order to pay soldiers in something that could be recognized across national/cultural boundaries, and the concomitant growth in "market economies" that featured a lot of violence and slavery. He devastates the claim that the medieval period was a "dark age," instead seeing it as a return to the status quo before the Axial Age: a time when bullion goes out of favor, that local credit markets thrive, and of course how much more advanced China, India, and the Islamic Middle East were than western Europe. The Early Modern Era returns to bullion for pretty much the same reason it happened in the Axial Age: paying for armies, nationalizing the local regions and their credit schemes, and the various forms of enslavement that followed. He considered 1971 the beginning of a new era, turning away again from bullion, and expected a major move against creditors, highly confident it would come as a result of 2008. He understands the modern economy as the ability of the Americans to do as they wish as long as they wield the power and can cause great violence and devastation to any who would turn against them. The dollar is a fiat currency propped up by "tribute" called investing in Treasuries by many countries, compelled by America's sheer power. Capitalism, thus named by the socialists, is always in an apocalyptic moment; who knows what will come of it?

It is in his "prophetic hope" that he would prove most inaccurate; his death in 2020 is highly lamentable and a great loss, for if there were the real beginnings of a reckoning with the system we've built, it has taken place since then.

This is one of those books that will forever change the way you look at yourself, your society, and the constructs built within it. Highly recommended. ( )

how we derived our ideas about debt, money, economy--role of violence and military in creating and maintaining system

I had a difficult time slogging through Debt. It shares a similar problem with Niall Fergeson's completely unreadable "the Ascent of Money:" it mixes in the author's politics and political leanings with history to give everything this weird political sheen (in this case left to Fergeson's right.) In this case, Graeber's book covers more facts than political lecturing but it's bumped several stars for being overt.

However, Debt is a worthy read for anyone interested in the span of history from early Sumerian - Middle Ages. The sections on Babylonian debt-based society and the Roman slave society are especially strong; the entire chapter on the Axial Age and the move to coinage over debt to pay for mercenaries is good and solid read full of meaty "stuff." The effect of the fall of the Roman Empire on the coinage left in circulation and how that contributed to the Dark Ages while the smaller communities returned to earlier debt and borrow strategies is also good. I liked the breakdown on how debt goes back to wife trading and wife purchasing with cows as demonstrated in Africa and moving from that to a more generalized market -- the first people to ever price physical objects were, of course, thieves who needed to sell them for other things. And the most precious commodity is a human being.

Debt falls down in the Islam chapter and the China chapter, both which feel thin and full of conjecture. China has a big piece to play in the Cortez-dumping-silver-on-the-European-economy section but otherwise, it's glossed over. The chapter on the rise of Islam and the role it plays is dry and nearly unreadable.

What I want to say about Debt is to skip the boring parts and read the interesting ones. Skipping to halfway through the book to the Axial Age chapter is a good strategy. Skip everything after the Middle Ages -- Graeber hardly has interest in things like 18th century stock bubbles (although mentioned) and the rise of the East India Company. Saying, "Yeah this is a great book on ROME!" is good. Saying, "This is a great book on the history of monetary policy!" is not. It's an okay introduction to the genesis of debt, a great discussion about ancient and near-ancient monetary policy, and a fairly terrible one on the modern day.

Not a waste of time, but not 5 stars either. A good 3.5 star book. ( )

This was a fabulous book, contained all kinds of new information. Really is about Debt, not Money. Important difference. It's definitely worth a read if you are into economic theory. ( )

This book is a wild ride. It's in my 2016 reread queue which is tentative high praise. I need to check the sources and read it again but nevertheless it's highly entertaining and surely subversive. Incidentally it has one of the best surveys of peasant life through history that I've read since I listened to the lectures 'The Other Side of History: Daily Life in the Ancient World' by Robert Garland. A great summer read in any event. ( )

A book that set out to challenge the reader's preconceptions; it certainly ended up being extremely thought-provoking. I can't remember the last time I argued along with a book so much. Uncharitably, the book proceeded from speculation (when dealing with ancient history) to polemic (when nearing the current day) as Graeber sharpens his thesis into a fierce critique of capitalism itself. Despite that, the book is genuinely intriguing and has a lot of valuable insight derived by taking an anthropological approach to the study of debt, rather than the more traditional economic approach. Worth reading for anyone interested in the fascinating topic of debt — but I'd recommend pairing it with another book looking at the same topic from a different point of view. ( )

This author passed away over the summer, sadly, but I actually read this before that event. He was a well-known leftist academic and I wanted his take on the topic. The book isn't as hugely ambitious as the title may sound, but that was good as we got only the historical parts of debt systems that were relevant. The real crux is Graeber's theory that popular economists have always assumed--while rarely citing any evidence--that systems to track and pay debt derived from the need for something more efficient than simplistic barter. If nothing else, read the first and last chapters, where the author totally dismantles the laziness at the base of much economic thought as a "science" that I've always thought needed to be called out. ( )

An engaging and provocative history of debt and money from Mesopotamia to today. As someone in well over his head in student debt as well as an anarchist, this book grabbed me immediately. Graeber uses a wealth of historical examples and and anthropological research to challenge the myths of our current economic system. Beginning with a look at the idea of barter economies (surprise, they never existed) and examining the realities of the earliest economic systems, the author depicts history not as a march towards capitalism but as a cycle where money appears and disappears and human relationships and trust are the basis of economies for a large portion of history.

If you're looking for a book that will challenge your conception of economic history and how we think about debt, and gives you some examples of how economies and human relations have changed and can function differently, I highly recommend this to you!

( )

Phenomenal. If you never even think about this book again, know this: there is no evidence that money evolved out of barter, or that barter ever existed before money did.

That's the kind of thing you'll find in this book. Mixing history and anthropology, among other trains of thought, Graeber traces the roots of money and credit throughout human society. Most of this book is spent in times BC, split between Asia, Africa, and Europe. Much of what he finds really washes away the foundations of modern economic thinking. Another example: the gold standard had no inherent value because, at least until the time of microprocessors, gold had no value in itself, and so was just as artificially value as paper money--only worth anything when you know it can later be traded for roughly equal value.

I could go on, but this is really one of the best history books I may have ever read. Graeber doesn't propose specific solutions, which gives him an ability to incorporate truths that would be inconvenient for someone pursuing a specific goal, making this book all the more stunning. ( )

Neither a history nor about debt. The author spends over half of the book discussing the barter of goods and anthropological studies of primitive societies. ( )

It would be a farce to attempt to summarize this book. But it is important and very well written. You should read it. Whatever you think about the history of economic relations between people is probably not only wrong, but was taught as such intentionally, in order to control the very concepts and categories with which we think about it. ( )

Changed the way I think about economic systems - and super-interesting.

OK, the title succeeds at making this sound like the most boring book one could ever have the misfortune to read. However, this is a riveting, enlightening, educational and revealing work from go to whoa. I imagine that I will re-read this book a few times in my life.

That small interpersonal debts are a natural part of membership in any community; that interpersonal debt is now suppressed; that being debt-free to something or someone is one (of many) facets of being independent of that thing or person. We all know these things but we need to be told them, again, and again, and again.

This is the book. ( )

Not an economics text but a broad historical/anthropological/moral and economic study of human society and its attendant blind-spots. One of the most intellectually enjoyable, and thought-provoking books I have read in a long time. You might not agree with everything Graeber says, probably should not, but he makes the reader think, and encourages one to look beyond one's basic assumptions, reminding the reader that we are often so wrapped up in our own unseen cultural bias and mind-set that we don't even know how to ask the right questions. ( )