It took me some time to read it and I had some interesting takeaways, but Graeber is an anarcho-communist anthropologist and doesn't have a real grasp on economics.
Funny enough I read that book because Vitalik recommended it in 2017. Finishing it helped me realize how shallow his understanding of monetary policy is.
Your time will be better spent reading Rothbard or triple H.
Most interesting takeaway was that the barter system never existed at large scale and gold trade almost always took the form of debt. Basically the entire history of trade is debt based.
Also the idea that the best monies have no application, but rather exist between values. Thay was counterintuitive to me initially.
This.
Debt is a history book that tears down the idea of a barter economy in economic antiquity. It doesn't really say much of any meaning about Debt or modern economics, etc.
It's a fun read, though.
Thank you for the initial impressions. Will take everything said in this book with a grain of salt but want to expose myself to his conflicting ideas with mine.
