Debt: The First 5,000 Years

Debt is a simple reality of everyday human interaction and at the same time a great moral calculus that rationalizes terrible suffering. It's power ranges from telling someone, "I owe you one", to the fateful words more and more Americans hear everyday: "The bank will be taking your house". Debt is both a thing that can be sold, traded, and securitized, as well as a space in which the most basic of human relationships begin. David Graeber, an anthropologist currently at Goldsmiths, University of London, but also an organizer in the Occupy Wall Street movement, has carefully and systematically sorted out the antinomies that surround the moral arithmetic of debt with the revealing bifocal lens of historical anthropology. His book is revolutionary in its answers to the what he says is the Great Question of debt; it is easy to understand, drawing on anthropology's fascinating ability to shine a light on the ordinary; it is also sweeping, tackling ancient and modern economies. If you have ever been interested in why humans structure relationships around debt, this is an important book. Graeber begins the book by challenging the founding myths of economics. Theories of capital always evolve out of the impossibility of a barter economy, but Graeber presents compelling evidence to the contrary, demonstrating that no such barter economics ever existed. Debt, instead, has been with us from the very beginning. Debt is a relationship between two people who are "equals in those ways that are truly important", but are currently in a state of inequality, a state that must be resolved. Both parties seek to restore equality, but of interest are the things happen on that path to restoring equality. Debt as a temporary relationship of mutual need is far older than money, and has its own rules. His path to understanding the rules of debt, its importance in human relationships, and where debt goes wrong, is found in an examination of the the history of debt culture. The meat of the book is in Graeber's ability to step into and out of the currents and popular belief systems present in these cultures. He examines ancient Sumeria and the Old Testament kingdoms, where periodic resets of debt maintained systemic stability. These Jubilees destroyed the relationships that debt created, but saved people from debt peonage, a practice that many ancients saw as tantamount to slavery. Medieval Islamic empires kept a strict separation between market and government, thus the emphasis was on honor, a subject he investigates at great length because of its own status as a currency. Graeber's historical analysis can be so expansive that it is sometimes confusing, but the payoff is worth it when the big picture is realized. By the time Graeber reaches our modern world, he has begun to reveal that the "moral arithmetic" of debt can only be a product of violent enforcement of obligation; however, the contemporary system of obligation is entirely upside down. While we believe everyone has to pay their debts, this is demonstrably false, as the most powerful corporate entities in the world effectively had their debts paid for them in 2008. Coercion, the gun behind the loan documentation, reduces us to bare mathematics, often justifying what would otherwise be disgusting violations of life and liberty. Graeber concludes that we are quickly moving toward a new Jubilee, a cancelling of debts that will restore society. For him, the mutability of the rules of debt is our salvation, and history gives us many examples to learn from. I can't recommend this book enough.

David Graeber is a man after my own heart. Since the crisis in 2008, I've been reading up on economics in order to understand what was going on around me. i read milton friedman's monetary history of the united states, keynes's general theory, Minsky's stabilizing an unstable economy, galbraith's crash of 2008, adam smith's theory of moral sentiments and the wealth of nations... and a whole bunch of other stuff that i wouldn't want to bore you with. the point is i read literally thousands of pages of stuff in a whole bunch of different formats in order to understand what was going on around me. Eventually I came to view money (but notably not some other things) in ways similar to Chartalists. Money isn't my only interest however, and as i started to branch out i came to look at other social sciences for insights into economics. i read a few economic sociology books and a few political science books. then i came to anarchism. anarchism was interesting to me because there views on the state seemed to have a lot of affinities with chartalism and i wanted to learn more, especially their views on what a non-capitalist society might look like. unfortunately, to my great annoyance, some of the anarchists i know seem to hold anachronistic views about government default almost in reaction to keynesian ideas about achieving full employment. it must be nice to be a radical who thinks capitalism is going to collapse on itself any day now because the government will go "bankrupt". anyways through a chapter written by a chartalist about anarchist economic thought (here: (...), i found David Graeber's book fragments of an anarchist anthropology. i was deeply impressed by that book. the method of presentation, the meticulous citation and the ideas presented were very interesting. i remained (and still remain) unsure about anarchism (particularly by questions of food distribution and production to an overpopulated planet and by the ability of societies to coerce people into not being coercive) but i certainly was interested in his writing. Then, a few months later, i heard about this book! i mean an author i was deeply impressed with and wanted to read more of is publishing a book on my favorite subject where he takes up a position I hold, and am surprised anarchists haven't been taking up! talk about a mind reader! He wrote this book from a perspective that holds largely Chartalist views of money, but this book is so much more then that. it gets across a large body of historical and anthropological literature that is related and is able to make connections in ways you haven't considered. I've already talked about how much i like his writing style.I like everything about this book although i wished he had talked more about "practical metallism" ie the Gresham's dynamics involved with using metal or paper as money even if it is taxes that give money value. i also think he is uniquely positioned to talk about why printing money in a society of peasants might be more inflationary then printing money in a society of workers, but alas David Graeber can't write every thought I've ever had (although he's trying!) if you're reading this David Graeber, i would love to have a conversation with you. maybe when i get back home to new york city for thanksgiving we can meet at occupy wall street. oh it's almost needless to say, i read this book in 3 days in between college classes (never let school get in the way of learning). pick it up.

本書は将来の社会科学の古典となりうべき書物ではないでしょうか。それくらい複合的でマクロな観点から、緻密で具体的な分析が提示されています。ちなみに本書の要約は、雑誌「現代思想」の債務危機特集（２０１２年２月号）で村松圭一郎さんがなさっています。そちらもぜひ参照してください。主要なポイントが簡潔にまとまっていると思います。したがってここでは、そこでは取り上げられていなくて個人的に印象に残ったエピソードを紹介したいと思います。 １．株式会社の起源 株式会社の発生にイスラームの商慣行が影響を与えていたことは知っていたが、その理論的根拠までは知りませんでした。グレーバーによれば、最初に形而上的な実体としてのcorporationに理論的根拠が与えられたのは、１２５０年のインノケンティウス４世の教会法によってであり、これによって、時間的に永遠でどこにでも現われ（ubiquitous）、まるで個人のように人格を持つものとして扱われるという法的人格が規定された。このためには、時間と永遠を別物として扱うアウグスティヌス的伝統からの決別が必要であり、それを用意したのがスコラ哲学（特にトマス・アクイナス）であった。こうした法的人格は最初は修道院や大学などに適用され、それが徐々に拡大されて、結果的には東インド会社の成立を持って完成される。もちろんそれは、商業、征服、冒険の複合体として。 ２．世界経済の出発点としての中国 １５世紀、中国ではちょっとした銀ラッシュが起こっていた。それまで中国では、自律的な経済圏を営んでいたため、国家が発行する貨幣が信用として価値を持ち、したがってマテリアルな物（金、銀）は貨幣となっていなかったのだが、銀が大量に市場の流れて以降、銀が実質的な貨幣となっていた。もちろん銀は無尽蔵にあるわけではないので、銀を独占し、市場を独占する傾向にある大商人と、困窮化しがちな農民との格差拡大を阻止するために、銀を輸入して銀の市場価値を低くしておく必要があった。そこに都合よく出てきたのが新大陸の銀である。この銀が中国に輸入されるようになってからが真の世界経済の発生である。ちなみに、このような観点のもとに立つと、従来のいわゆる「価格革命」の原因の説明が根底から覆される。端的に言えば、銀は（金も）ヨーロッパ市場には流れない。インフレの原因は、私有化されたスペインの国債の投機である。 ところでグレーバーは、最後の最後で、人間は本当の意味では誰にも何も負っていない（つまり負債は無い）と結論付ける。これは一見したところ、彼の相互負債、相互依存に立脚する「コミュニスム」の定義（コミュニスムとは、平たく言えば助け合いのこと）とは反するものである。しかし、個人的にはこの感覚に非常に共感を覚える。我々は友人、家族、恋人などに何らかの恩義、ありがたみを感じつつも、にもかかわらず、自分は個人として絶対的に自由だという感情を、少なくとも私は持っている。つまり彼は、負債という関係だけにとらわれないような新たな倫理の可能性にかけているといえる。公的な負債は踏み倒されるべきだと主張している。したがって、我々と国家との関係は非人格的である以上、そこに道徳的義務感を感じる必要はまったくない。つまり奨学金は払う必要はまったくない。あんなもの踏み倒して当然である。覚えておけよ、日本学生支援機構。

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!) ;)

If you're thinking about studying economics, you should read this book first. If you've already studied economics, you should read this book, but be prepared to be disappointed in the critical faculties of your previous teachers. If you're studying economics, don't read this book - it contradicts too much of what you need to amass to pass your exams - yet. Seriously, this is a great book. It teaches, generates reactions, inspires new thoughts and encourages further exploration. You want to strangle the author at a couple of points, and he's not short of opinions worth strangling someone about. There are (some) laughs. A previous reviewer rightly notes the lacuna of Hayek. But ... Graeber is an anthropologist squaring off against entire professions and generations of economists and financiers and bankers and government monetary policy-makers across a new battlefield (the study of how people behave). He scores some telling hits - the myth of the origins of barter, new ways of looking at the reasons behind the rise (till recently) of the West (and it isn't pleasant), the rise and fall of paper money in China, why the state matters, faith-salvation-and-debt, and builds a fundamental premise - communities form when people are prepared to be indebted to one another. If this were the last book on the subject, sure it's incomplete and has a few flaws. But it's not the last; rather a fundamental read along an important road - when would we know our financial system is working?

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"

Conforme