4 ms·

So because you don't barter with your family and friends - while living a top 0.00001% lifestyle compared to most people in history - you conclude bartering wa

So because you don't barter with your family and friends - while living a top 0.00001% lifestyle compared to most people in history - you conclude bartering wasn't really a big thing in the past and people just gave things away for free most of the time? I assume no, but I'm not understanding what are you actually arguing for then?

afarrell 5y ago
My assumption is that your lifestyle is similarly detached from antiquity as mine. My only firm conclusion is that it is non-obvious, either of us would need more evidence, and that it was worth David Graeber's time to research.
achenet 5y ago
I think you misunderstood his point- in a system without money, you can directly barter (ie I give you an apple for your your orange), or adopt a ‘credit’ based system (ie I give you an apple today, and when I need a favor I’ll ask you for one - like the Godfather, for example). What the book ‘Debt’ discusses is that credit based systems were the norm, not bartering. In fact, iirc even bats have been shown to keep track of who shares food with them, and to share excess food with a less lucky partner, provided that partner continues to reciprocate.
- Nimitz14 5y ago
  Thank you for explaining.
- postingawayonhn 5y ago
  Isn't that 'credit system' just one step in transitioning to a monetary system? It's unlikely that people were battering one day and then suddenly had this great idea of transitioning to a system of using money. Battering > battering with some credit > formalised money system seems like a logical series of steps to me. And of course there would be many more small steps between those. I would expect the number of transactions using credit to track the growth of society and the corresponding range of goods and service available.
  - alexilliamson 5y ago
    Well thats the whole point of the debt book. Taking that progression and poking holes in it. IIRC, Graber suggests that physical money came in too play when kings needed to levy armies.
    - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
      I know this is a lousy source, but my Latin teacher in High School claimed that Caesar invented fiat currency (although she didn't use those words). He put is face on gold coin, gave it to soldiers, and demanded that his taxes be paid not in any-old-gold, but in Caesar-face gold. Thereby ensuring that recently conquered villages have an incentive to feed and house the solders that conquered them. This way, those soldiers didn't need to resupply before moving on to the next village. It would seem that we've been using money to override ethics on behalf of the powerful ever since.

afarrell 5y ago

My assumption is that your lifestyle is similarly detached from antiquity as mine. My only firm conclusion is that it is non-obvious, either of us would need more evidence, and that it was worth David Graeber's time to research.

achenet 5y ago

I think you misunderstood his point- in a system without money, you can directly barter (ie I give you an apple for your your orange), or adopt a ‘credit’ based system (ie I give you an apple today, and when I need a favor I’ll ask you for one - like the Godfather, for example). What the book ‘Debt’ discusses is that credit based systems were the norm, not bartering. In fact, iirc even bats have been shown to keep track of who shares food with them, and to share excess food with a less lucky partner, provided that partner continues to reciprocate.

Nimitz14 5y ago
Thank you for explaining.
postingawayonhn 5y ago
Isn't that 'credit system' just one step in transitioning to a monetary system? It's unlikely that people were battering one day and then suddenly had this great idea of transitioning to a system of using money. Battering > battering with some credit > formalised money system seems like a logical series of steps to me. And of course there would be many more small steps between those. I would expect the number of transactions using credit to track the growth of society and the corresponding range of goods and service available.
- alexilliamson 5y ago
  Well thats the whole point of the debt book. Taking that progression and poking holes in it. IIRC, Graber suggests that physical money came in too play when kings needed to levy armies.
  - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
    I know this is a lousy source, but my Latin teacher in High School claimed that Caesar invented fiat currency (although she didn't use those words). He put is face on gold coin, gave it to soldiers, and demanded that his taxes be paid not in any-old-gold, but in Caesar-face gold. Thereby ensuring that recently conquered villages have an incentive to feed and house the solders that conquered them. This way, those soldiers didn't need to resupply before moving on to the next village. It would seem that we've been using money to override ethics on behalf of the powerful ever since.