And so on. Might want to read more than "chunks" of a book before lecturing the world on what's not in it.

The extent of my knowledge of your book (I'm assuming you are the author), is only what people are discussing here, but my quick impression was that the person you responded to characterized your view of debt pretty well.

He seems to have a mental image of "debt" as something that a loan shark puts you in so that he can break your legs afterwards, rather than the vast majority of the world's responsible debt arrangements which wind up beneficial to both parties.

planetguy said:

"He seems to have a mental image of "debt" as something that a loan shark puts you in so that he can break your legs afterwards, rather than the vast majority of the world's responsible debt arrangements which wind up beneficial to both parties."

This seems extremely in-line with what you just posted:

"What is a debt, anyway? A debt is just the perversion of a promise. It is a promise corrupted by both math and violence..."

This does strike me as needlessly negative, too, as many debts are mutually beneficial, no?

You're right, page 4 does mention the idea that a debt is a promise. But it's immediately pooh-poohed as an idea that's "dangerous because it's self-evident". And the last paragraph does call a debt a "promise corrupted by both math and violence", but it's not clear how anything is "corrupted" here. So yeah, you acknowledge this self-evident idea, but only to dismiss it without a proper argument.

Also while you're here (actually yours is exactly the kind of book that I read while wishing that I could argue with the author about certain points, so it really is a privilege to have you here and I hope that doesn't sound like a backhanded compliment), the other point I think you dismiss without enough of a fight is the idea that all human interactions are based on reciprocity. There is of course one counter-example, the child-parent relationship in which the parent is generally happy to give selflessly, but that's a special case which seems to be more-or-less hard-coded into our genes; our minds are programmed to give selflessly to our children since from our genes' point of view they're nearly equivalent to ourselves. Once we step outside the parent-child relationship, however, your other examples of non-reciprocal human behaviour (apart from outright theft, extortion and other forms of behaviour where one party isn't consenting) don't ring true. Two labourers working on the same project will, of course, pass each other hammers, but there is an expectation of reciprocity even in group work, as anyone who has ever worked in a group with someone not pulling their weight will know.

In conclusion, you've written an interesting history of debt, but I think you've started off with some kind of antipathy towards debt which has stopped you from really gaining a good perspective on it. I still don't understand the objection to the basic concept of debt: that if Alice has something and Bob needs it then Alice can lend Bob that thing and get it back in the future, for mutual benefit. I find that to be a glorious example of human interaction at its best. But then again, I've already paid off my mortgage.

There's many ways where those with surplus wealth can give it to those with insufficient wealth. Anyone here on HN can name multiple forms of investment/subsidy (such as venture capital, or the goverment subsidy which led to computers and the internet), and some may even be at work at more advanced forms of credit unions (such as Mike Leung's work on participatory credit unions).

Furthermore, anyone who's skimmed the book's first chapter can see that this poster's original post was beyond uninformed, taking a point _Debt_ carefully discusses in the first few pages, and presents it as if the author never anticipated it. Same with the book's discussion of commercial reciprocity vs. mutual aid in chapter 5.

David just helpfully posted here to point out the obvious...

However, surprisingly, I couldn't find any good opposing analysis to his book. Maybe because it's too newly published. But, the ones that I did find, seemed to appeal to authority: That Graeber wasn't an economist and was only an anthropologist meant that he didn't really get it. I didn't find those arguments particularly useful. If you can lead me to other materials, I'd be happy to read them. I'm still trying to make sense of it, myself.

Anyway, I can see why you took away what you did. Graeber frequently attacks the establishment and makes some analogies that are somewhat painful to my market-conditioned, western brain. But, my takeaways were still very different.

I'd forget the argument-from-authority, though, and just say that Graeber went into this project with some kind of irrational antipathy towards "debt", which despite years of careful research he's been unable to shake. Much like if a KKK member decided to write the definitive history of the US Civil War [substitute less inflammatory example if you feel like it] he might put together a really well-researched, well-footnoted piece of writing but still be just plain missing some fundamental piece of understanding due to the blind spots he had when going in.

The history of debt, in all its glory, is a fascinating subject. There have been debts which turned out mutually beneficial, debts which drove debtors to ruin, debts which drove creditors to ruin. There have been debts imposed under terms unfair to one party or the other, and debts between close friends where the terms are kept extremely lenient both ways. There have been formal debts and informal debts, debts of money and of literal backrubs. But Graeber, for some reason, seems to skip over all those debts which make the concept of "debt" look good and only describe those which make it sound bad.

It's frankly just plain weird. It reminds me of Eric Cartman's class report on Asian culture: "Asian culture has plagued our fragile planet for centuries. It must be destroyed."

This is the part where I think he actually is on pretty solid historical ground. Almost every society in history has had significant problems with, and a backlash against, at least certain kinds of debt, where it didn't really seem to be in the interest of both parties. They don't really seem like outlier cases. Most societies seem to have dealt with it by deciding that it's not actually good to require repayment in every circumstance, especially if the debt persists for a while. That's why you have things like the biblical Jubilee---periodic cancellation of all debts---in many societies.

I mean, did the credit market dry up overnight? Once the precedent has been set that the king can cancel everyone else's debts for no reason, what reason would anyone have for lending money? Or did some folks come up with "un-cancellable" debts which are deemed not to be cancelled in jubilees (under penalty of private leg-breaking)?

The part I found interesting, and wanted to read more about, was the Golden Age of Islam, in which a financial and commercial system developed (in fact, developed free-market ideology) entirely without usurious debts of any kind.