3 ms·

The book "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" (https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/debt/ https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/debt/) makes a compelling case that no societies on

by scott_s 10y ago

The book "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" (https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/debt/ https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/debt/) makes a compelling case that no societies on record have depended on a barter economy. The author also argues that debt even predates state sponsored currency.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Debt obviously predates states sponsored currency. Heck, money economies (that is, ones in which there is a generally accepted medium of exchange and unit of account for debt) predate state sponsored currency (or even states). I've never even heard of that being an active argument. And the question was about using barter, not depending on barter exclusively; every society has used barter. And, in any case, debt and barter are not opposed; a system that uses debt of arbitrary commodities without a commonly-accepted unit of account is still a barter system (barter systems with debt certainly have existed, whether or not they were ever the dominant basis for any economy.)
- scott_s 10y ago
  The comment that got this whole subthread started was that we would "return to barter." That implies that there was a time where economies were primarily barter based, and that the question "In what societies have humans used barter?" likely meant primarily barter. So my understanding of the question was not using, but primarily barter.
asldkfjasfd7 10y ago
It depends on some definitions, but I've read that's not the case. Jericho region is said to have been exclusively barter based until ~7,500 BC And it depends on what you mean by "depended on". The central authorities of the day maybe preferred to rely on financial tools, but the people themselves performed a non-insignificant amount of commerce using barter. "2 knicks on this clay tablet reminds me that I gave Tom two bushels of wheat, and Tom will return to me 2 pelts," contrived example to make the point aside, such scenarios as I understand it, were (and are) pretty common. It depends on what context you're looking from. Bankers might say it's a ridiculous, outdated notion, and sell the idea it's never really existed. Poor people might say yeah well, it's all we really have.
- scott_s 10y ago
  The book "Debt" is decidedly not written by a banker. The author, David Graeber, was part of the Occupy movement, among other things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber

by scott_s 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

Debt obviously predates states sponsored currency. Heck, money economies (that is, ones in which there is a generally accepted medium of exchange and unit of account for debt) predate state sponsored currency (or even states). I've never even heard of that being an active argument. And the question was about using barter, not depending on barter exclusively; every society has used barter. And, in any case, debt and barter are not opposed; a system that uses debt of arbitrary commodities without a commonly-accepted unit of account is still a barter system (barter systems with debt certainly have existed, whether or not they were ever the dominant basis for any economy.)

scott_s 10y ago
The comment that got this whole subthread started was that we would "return to barter." That implies that there was a time where economies were primarily barter based, and that the question "In what societies have humans used barter?" likely meant primarily barter. So my understanding of the question was not using, but primarily barter.

asldkfjasfd7 10y ago

It depends on some definitions, but I've read that's not the case. Jericho region is said to have been exclusively barter based until ~7,500 BC And it depends on what you mean by "depended on". The central authorities of the day maybe preferred to rely on financial tools, but the people themselves performed a non-insignificant amount of commerce using barter. "2 knicks on this clay tablet reminds me that I gave Tom two bushels of wheat, and Tom will return to me 2 pelts," contrived example to make the point aside, such scenarios as I understand it, were (and are) pretty common. It depends on what context you're looking from. Bankers might say it's a ridiculous, outdated notion, and sell the idea it's never really existed. Poor people might say yeah well, it's all we really have.

scott_s 10y ago
The book "Debt" is decidedly not written by a banker. The author, David Graeber, was part of the Occupy movement, among other things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber