Every economics textbook says the same thing: Money was invented to replace onerous and complicated barter systems—to relieve ancient people from having to haul their goods to market. The problem with this version of history? There’s not a shred of evidence to support it.
Here anthropologist David Graeber presents a stunning reversal of co...
Every economics textbook says the same thing: Money was invented to replace onerous and complicated barter systems—to relieve ancient people from having to haul their goods to market. The problem with this version of history? There’s not a shred of evidence to support it.
Here anthropologist David Graeber presents a stunning reversal of conventional wisdom. He shows that for more than 5,000 years, since the beginnings of the first agrarian empires, humans have used elaborate credit systems to buy and sell goods—that is, long before the invention of coins or cash. It is in this era, Graeber argues, that we also first encounter a society divided into debtors and creditors.
Graeber shows that arguments about debt and debt forgiveness have been at the center of political debates from Italy to China, as well as sparking innumerable insurrections. He also brilliantly demonstrates that the language of the ancient works of law and religion (words like “guilt,” “sin,” and “redemption”) derive in large part from ancient debates about debt, and shape even our most basic ideas of right and wrong. We are still fighting these battles today without knowing it.
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a fascinating chronicle of this little known history—as well as how it has defined human history, and what it means for the credit crisis of the present day and the future of our economy.
in the 198os, the United States, which insisted on strict terms for the re payment of Third World debt, itself accrued debts that easily dwarfed those of the entire Third World combined-mainly fueled by military spending. (查看原文)
but one could easily make a case that the only reason it insists on treating these payments as "loans" and not as "tribute" is precisely to deny the reality of what's going on. (查看原文)
懒残僧
中信出版社2012版
dialectics
中信出版社2012版
Δανιήλ
中信出版集团2020版
1982mile
中信出版社2012版
Airmaker
中信出版集团2020版
(●—●)
中信出版社2012版
0 有用 Ddforever 2012-10-17 15:07:34
粗读一遍，待再读
0 有用 Yanwei 2022-01-30 17:19:18
立场鲜明的无政府主义者，还是很佩服作者的批判能力
6 有用 庄常飞 2012-10-19 10:14:59
这本书好的地方在于用人类学的角度思考经济、让我获益良多，不好的地方是作者野心太大、非要粗粗写5000年，造成许多不正确的概括，以及作者自己的思想偏见。与此同时，作为教授的作者学问可能是好的，但书真是写的散漫至极。
0 有用 爱吃海鱼的喵 2016-06-07 23:38:41
从人类学和社会学角度写的经济著作 荣誉与荣誉降级那章挺有意思的
3 有用 化城 2013-10-10 22:42:57
从论述部分来看是４星，政治观点加１星。
0 有用 Answer Lu 2023-05-19 22:26:16 上海
Didactic
0 有用 左岸单行道 2023-05-12 12:56:11 美国
Audible 5.11. 2023.
0 有用 Hecate_ 2023-04-18 11:51:08 美国
有意思 值得再读
0 有用 一缶堂 2022-11-27 09:56:32 上海
这些所谓的左翼学者 永远都在发现问题 却永远无法解决问题 这就是左翼学者不招成年人喜欢的原因 也是他们受傻小子们欢迎的原因
0 有用 古蚊子 2022-10-27 07:39:34 荷兰
这才是interdisciplinary啊！尽管细节未必精确但是21世纪要想博古通今可是胆子得肥肥的 于是也有推开episteme 边界的力量 学校里的都是什么化工建材interdiscipline🤬🤬🤬