Summary Of Debt: The Myth Of Barter

There is a mysterious voice saying “We didn 't use money. In ancient times we used to barter commodities directly.” This voice appears in every society with money, and as Graeber believes, is fantasy. In his book Debt: The first 5,000 Years, Graeber states “We did not begin with barter, discover money, and then eventually develop credit systems. It happened precisely the other way around” (21). Graeber writes his book to dispel the widespread notion of the “Myth of Barter” and provides his own hypothesis that debt was the first system of economics.
Debt: The First 5,000 Years provides a brief history of economic anthropology, and explains how it impacts us today. What I enjoy about Graeber’s work is its challenge towards traditionally …show more content…
First is his lack of a consistent framework in which he presents the historical information. Instead of showing how barter is a myth and then proving his hypothesis, he mixes allegories of both theories together and never gives a concise explanation to how they prove his theory. These allegories leave a vague feeling about a given idea but never come together coherently. This method may be more interesting for a book, but in order to convince a skeptic of his argument it should be presently more clearly. Furthermore, there is a specifics in the chapter, such as dates. The presentation of such an argument is as important as its content, Graeber’s theory it should appear more professional if it wants to be taken …show more content…
Two important notes to remember are that a lack of historical evidence does not prove falsehood, and the distinction between small scale barter and a barter economy. In small scale barter hunters could trade meat to gatherers in exchange for berries. Documentation of such events occurring in antiquity is nearly impossible to prove, yet modern humans engage in similar behavior daily. A possible reason why there is no proof of barter economies are the severe limitations of barter. If the coincidence of wants is not met, then the transaction cannot occur. However with the introduction of money barter evolves into trade since there is a common interest in money. I would argue that necessary intelligence for humans to engage in barter is near equal to engaging in trade. The fundamental difference between barter and trade is replacing a good for a common stock. Stock could be gold, coinage, paper money, bitcoins, or really any resource agreed upon that is limited in supply. For a group to develop from barter to trade would require an agreed upon stock, and the intellectual capacity to understand the value of the stock. I would argue that the hurdle from barter to trade is relatively small and the time to jump that hurdle is less than the time for artifacts of a barter economy to