Scan barcode
nuk's review against another edition
3.0
This was a hard read.
Not only is the book bad but the topic and content are great.
However, the writing is too slow and repetitive.
The author goes on and on with the same topics and with too many reviews over the same topic.
Regardless, the view that debt is the basis for money and that debt is both a taboo and an essential part of our lives is very interesting. It makes you wonder for hours about how our current world came to be and how it currently works (or doesn't).
It was worth the pain.
Not only is the book bad but the topic and content are great.
However, the writing is too slow and repetitive.
The author goes on and on with the same topics and with too many reviews over the same topic.
Regardless, the view that debt is the basis for money and that debt is both a taboo and an essential part of our lives is very interesting. It makes you wonder for hours about how our current world came to be and how it currently works (or doesn't).
It was worth the pain.
epellicci's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Slavery
titus_hjelm's review against another edition
3.0
I really wanted to like this book, and I did, but it was less like the critical account that I imagined it to be, but rather a sweeping comparison of money in cultures around the world. I wonder if this book had the same fate as Piketty's Capital, which many bought and few read.
ashplowe's review against another edition
Rambling and confusing. Lost me in the section of "but what is debt really?" Felt like I was on a stoner's couch trying to keep track of what he was trying to say
fatbookishfemme's review against another edition
4.0
Can't recommend this book strongly enough - readable and straight-forward, also totally changed the way I think about money, debt, and the mythical histories of debt and capitalism. Really enlightening and accessible.
dvdmcn's review against another edition
2.0
This book was a chore to read. It only got interesting in the last 50 pages and the 100 before those were so dry.
The topic is interesting but the author would have been better served just looking at debt for the last 500 years. And maybe even just the last 50!
The topic is interesting but the author would have been better served just looking at debt for the last 500 years. And maybe even just the last 50!
chickenrice's review against another edition
2.0
Rather interesting and thought-provoking take on history of debt from an anthropologist ' s standpoint. However, many parts are obviously colored by 1. the author's desire to frame and explain away many things with debt, and 2. the author's obvious agenda against capitalism (he is a leader in the Occupy Movement).
I might be wrong, but I sense that the book is full of selection/confirmation bias and usage of spurious correlations. The author has a clear axe to grind. What irks me is his very selective, cherry-picking use of "alternative" theories that support his points. Also, it seems to me that Graeber is confusing debt as a cause rather than a symptom - yes, debt has historically been associated with empires, wars, slavery and violence - but one can write a book titled Metal: A 5,000 Year History in a similar way and reach the conclusion that metal is quite evil.
What is presented is not a sterile history of debt as the title might suggest, but a considerably colored and biased one, laden with theories that can't really be empirically proved (probably a problem afflicting anthropology as a scientific field).
I might be wrong, but I sense that the book is full of selection/confirmation bias and usage of spurious correlations. The author has a clear axe to grind. What irks me is his very selective, cherry-picking use of "alternative" theories that support his points. Also, it seems to me that Graeber is confusing debt as a cause rather than a symptom - yes, debt has historically been associated with empires, wars, slavery and violence - but one can write a book titled Metal: A 5,000 Year History in a similar way and reach the conclusion that metal is quite evil.
What is presented is not a sterile history of debt as the title might suggest, but a considerably colored and biased one, laden with theories that can't really be empirically proved (probably a problem afflicting anthropology as a scientific field).