3 ms·
I believe you mean "Debt: The First 5000 Years". I'm still reading it. It's good for understanding these ideas, but it spends a lot of time in the beginning in
by scott_s 13y ago
I believe you mean "Debt: The First 5000 Years". I'm still reading it. It's good for understanding these ideas, but it spends a lot of time in the beginning in "the language of debt" and how it relates to religions. That is interesting in its own right, but not why I picked up the book.
- nunb 13y agoyeah, that religious part was a bit far-fetched. (As a hindu/brahmin I LOL'd). I've read several different theories of money and I don't find the debt vs coincidence-of-wants bifurcation that Graeber alludes to such a big difference in practice. He pretty much hangs his whole approach off of that, but the two can be reconciled quite easily in my mind. I wish everyone would read David Graeber (first) and then Detlev Schlichter.