p. 44 Debt: The First 5000 Years
" …in 1958 Paul Samuelson, one of the leading lights of the neoclassical school that still predominates in modern economic thought, could express disdain for what he called “the social contrivance of money”. “Even in the most advanced industrial economies” he insisted “if we strip exchange down to its barest essentials and peel off the obscuring layer of money, we find that trace between individuals and nations largely boils down to barter”. Others spoke of the “veil of money” obscuring the nature of the “real economy” in which people produced real goods and services and swapped them back and forth. Call this the final apotheosis of economics as common sense. Money is unimportant. Economies —“real economies” are really vast barter systems. The problem is that history shows that without money, such vast barter systems do no occur. Even when economies “revert to barter” as Europe was said to do in the Middle Ages, they don’t actually abandon the use of money. They just abandon the use of cash. In the Middle Ages. for instance, everyone continued to assess the value of tools and livestock in the old Roman currency, even if the coins themselves had ceased to circulate."
Right… once people are accustomed to denarii or dollars, it is easy to reckon the worth of everything else in those terms. Whether or not you’re actually handing coins around. But it works just as well to reckon everything in chickens, and this similarly does not require the transport of actual chickens.
I’ll go back to my previous example. At the heart of bartering is the immediate direct exchange of goods and services. You give me some fruit and I’ll give you some meat. This doesn’t do any good if I don’t need fruit and you don’t need meat. The means of exchange is needed very quickly.
Quantified value and a debt is the basis of money. The physical money is not important, it’s the promise to pay a known amount. Money starts as soon as one of the parties or goods is not present at the time to barter.
I’m sure you’re correct, but I imagine it was also common for primitive people to give gifts to neighbors as a show of weakness rather than strength: – “Hey, don’t massacre us; we’ll supply you with tribute.”
Once upon a time there was no other tribe.
After humanity split in tribes they still weren’t total strangers. Language, customs, religion, clothing etc. all shared but with variations.
Did you get this from the literature, or the Flintstones 
Up until quite recently (abandonment of the gold standard) money was worth something tangible. The trick of a promissory note that would be redeemed for gold or silver on demand. Even bales of tobacco were fungible currency for a time.
Cowrie shells are the odd one out. So long as their supply was limited they could be used as currency. But they didn’t have an intrinsic value. There was nothing you could do with a cowrie shell that made it useful or valuable, apart from maybe an ornament.
The nature of banking goes back to the a way of managing the very human trait of attempting to get away with adulterating things of value. Where an exchange was set up that guaranteed a fair value of exchange for coins of a wide variety of provenance and content.
What mattered, and what made such an exchange so valuable was that such coinage became even more fungible. And at this point becomes much like we consider real money. The point about money is that my $1 is just as good as yours. Anything that your $1 can buy, so can mine. IOU’s in a barter system don’t work the same way. Not until you create a universal exchange mechanism, so that I can know that my 1000 apples is worth the same as a sheep, and will remain so. That they remain so is key. Otherwise you are doing swaps on a futures market. And that isn’t money.
It does if you assume people are rational. Maybe people are injecting their perfect rational actors into these arguments without considering they may never have existed.
I thought banking went back to the post agricultural, Mesopotamian trait of robbing people?
That came very soon after. The very existence of banks always eventually overwhelmed the ethics of the virtuous, when they realised that the bank could act as their own personal lifestyle fund, and it took ordinary people a very long time to notice.
haha not quite what I meant but if it’s a myth it’s a damned good one.
Here’s what bothers me about the whole back-and-forth argument about whether bartering preceded money. Common sense and experience tell me that both could well have existed simultaneously. They do today. Another point is that Paul Samuelson, a still respected economist argued that bartering preceded the use of money. A writer/activist and economist on the fringes, shall we say, argues against it. I’m not an economist, but David Graeb does make a persuasive argument. Who makes the better argument? Samuelson or Graeb? Where does that leave textbook economics in this regard? Is it wrong? An oversimplification which we just have to wean ourselves off of? I understand that textbook economics tries to come up with a consensus within a very complex, messy and by no means unified field of study, but still say that bartering preceded money is a naive oversimplification. Isn’t it?
This is just so much argument from authority and reputation.
Commonsense and experience ? How about field research and scientific curiosity instead ?
Graeber has years of experience in anthropology field work, what does Samuelson have ?
Economics isn’t a science, it’s top proponents are frequently embarrassingly and tragically wrong.
There are a lot of complaints about the inadequacy of economics textbooks and the axioms they base theory on from even within the field.
If the state of our society is a reflection of economist’s genius…please…
About halfway through now. I love this book! It really pulls apart some of the ‘just so’ stories we’re told about the development of modern economics. Insightful, well supported and more than a little disturbing at times. Thanks to OP and others for drawing my attention to it.
Nobody wants to comment on whether you incur a debt by accepting Graeber’s download ?
There are people today who work with primitive groups. In this case the people will make some sort of craft (example arrows, musical instruments) and then barter those for outsider goods like shoes.
Kind of like digging silver or gold out of a riverbed or the ground, right? Or the way salt’s been used as a currency at various times and places in history?
I think the point was that the shells weren’t super-common, even for coastal people, so that they weren’t flooding the economy with lots of shells and reducing their worth.
I imagine that’s true even in places where salt was plentiful- someone still had to go into the salt mines, or evaporate the seawater or whatever, so that they’d have something to trade, and this put a certain brake on how much could be produced.
And salt’s probably a good thought experiment for the barter - money transition; at first, it was probably bartered, and after a while, someone with some salt realized that it was more universally useful- everyone needed salt for food preservation. So it probably ended up more standardized over time- so much salt was equivalent to a goat, and a different amount for a chicken, etc…
Legally? Morally? Financially? Spiritually?
I’ll probably have a better idea when I’ve finished it. 
Gold, and silver always seemed to have some intrinsic value - although it was variable. The historical ratio of value between gold and silver seems to bear that out. But there is no doubt, it was principally the consistent rarity of the metals that was the bedrock of its value. The allure of gold is something of legend, it seems to be hard to pin down quite what is that gives gold its place in
Salt was valuable only in areas where it was rare, but as a consumable it wasn’t really money.
Shells were of course something of fixed quantity when useful as a currency. Really not much different to coinage.
The point from above still goes back to fungibility. Gold, silver, salt, shells even, were fungible. Your ounce of gold was just as good as mine. If I had got mine from selling apples, and you had got yours from selling sheep, it didn’t matter. We could both go and buy beer. Even if the tavern owner had no interest in apples or sheep.
Rai stones had no intrinsic value. And the intrisic value of cowrie shells seems dubious to me. What they had in common is that they were rare, not that they were useful.