Debt : The First 5000 Years (Updated and Expanded)

I bought this book as a present for my partner. He loves reading. The book arrived in great condition and was well received.My partner said the book was very interesting to read as it's well-written and educational while being engaging.

Impressive scholarship from an anthropological point of view.

The book is an exceptional study on the origin of money. However, the book is not about how coinage and cash and banknotes, and the infrastructures around them, evolved. Instead, it's a study on how the concept of money came to be, why, when, and how ancient societies managed to achieve the things that money achieves before money existed.More importantly, it's a study conducted by an anthropologist rather than an economist or a historian. That offers a unique perspective that, to me, is significantly more reliable than anything written by the other two kinds of professionals.It's is a gripping story and a must-read if you are passionate about history or economics. However, the book has an additional, unsupected value for a completely different category of readers.At the time of writing this review, the mainstream audience worldwide starts to learn about cryptocurrencies based on blockchains, NFT-based economies, and many other related concepts that go under the umbrella term of "web3".Among the many criticisms against cryptocurrencies, there are some about the lack of support from the government, the fact that they represent virtual money not pegged to gold, or that the whole system is a giant Ponzi scheme.Without ever referring to cryptocurrencies or other web3 concepts (they were not even on the author's radar at the time of writing), this book is full of surprises that pertain to those technologies.For example, human societies went through alternate phases where they either used credit systems and virtual money or cash based on gold and silver bullions and coins. And virtual money came first.In another example, governments almost always legitimated a new currency (virtual or real) *after* it was being used by private citizens for at least one generation.For these reasons, I believe this book is mandatory for anybody that wants to develop a position on cryptocurrencies, either pro or against them.That said, I have a few recommendations for readers that have yet to start the book:1. Skip Chapter 1 entirely and read it at the end of the book, after the last chapter and the Afterword. The reason is that in Chapter 1, the author expresses political positions and unveils parts of his personal life that are polarizing and might strongly bias the reader against or in favour of the rest of the content. Once that happens, it will take a long time to regain objectivity and focus on the quality of the work rather than on the author's position.2. The author tends to digress, which is evident in more than one chapter. In some cases, the digression is necessary to provide a broad and detailed historical, political, and economic context to justify the unfolding of the events. In other cases, it seems that the love for history drives the digression rather than a practical need. The reader will have to make an effort to keep the focus and be patient as the author closes all the loops and makes the key points clear.3. The last chapter, Chapter 12, feels especially dense compared to the rest of the book, with an exceptional amount of references and names and concepts that the author doesn't fully articulate as in other chapters. At traits, the writing feels rushed or possibly constrained by a certain length. In other moments, it just seems an unnecessary exercise in eloquence. Whatever the reason, most of this chapter will require a leap of faith. The good news is that Chapter 12 is not critical to understanding how money came to be.4. It's essential to read the Afterword written in 2014. It will give colour to the reasons behind the book and what happened after. As I said before, only at this point makes sense to go back and read Chapter 1.Overall, a 4 out 5 stars.---How I review books5 stars - an exceptional book that expands my reasoning, not just my knowledge4 stars - a great book that significantly expands my knowledge3 stars - a book with some interesting information and some major flaws that didn't really make an impact in my life.(Notice that there's a time in life for certain books. It's possible that this was not the time for this book, and the review rating would change ten years from now)2 stars - a book that gave me nothing and took my time.1 star - a book so poorly written that I couldn't even finish reading.

Despite reading many of the reviews, this book was not what I was expecting. I thought the book was about economic debt... it’s not... it’s mainly about psychology of debt. The difference is subtle but interesting.The book is written by an academic for academic philosophers. It’s not intended for the general public, but if you’re prepared to wade through all that heavy language you will not be disappointed.The book is an enormous storeroom of information about social history as seen through the eyes of an anthropologist rather than a historian or an economist. Each reader will extract the bits most useful and ignore the rest.For me the book was about tribal bartering arrangements – the origins of money – why money was created – what is the purpose of money – the psychology of debt as opposed to the economics of debt – why is it considered theft to charge interest on a loan?The book will appeal to cynics who see a world run by evil greedy people and would like to undo the social brainwashing we endure while growing up.The book is an eye opener. The book contains few facts – the conclusions drawn are mostly those of the author. Read and decide for yourself whether the author’s conclusions are correct.The general public will find this book hard work to read but well worth the effort.

Perfect. I really enjoy reading it.

This is one of the most important books I have ever read. In fact it has changed my outlook on many things, e.g. God, money, debt. This is not to say that I agree with the author's worldview - I don't. But I do like the way he thinks, or should I say, that he *thinks* at all. (I realise he passed away a few years ago. Our loss!)It's a long book and it took a while to get through it. But I'm very glad I made it.One little quibble. Could the always fascinating endnotes be turned into footnotes next time? Easier to read that way

.............