> A second major argument of the book is that, contrary to standard accounts of the history of money, debt is probably the oldest means of trade, with cash and barter transactions being later developments.
Sure, bartering isn’t the oldest, but the book doesn’t seem to discount bartering entirely.
Yeah, but the article talks about barter in the sense of transacting with natural resources like gold and diamonds. Graeber's point is that these items (along with debt) were mainly used as tools of arranging social relationships. They weren't used for general purpose economic barter as we know it. That only came later, after states introduced coinage and fiat money.
The book does indeed discount barter almost entirely. In the context of human societies over millennia, it's a fringe practice at best. This is even mentioned in the wiki article.
> A second major argument of the book is that, contrary to standard accounts of the history of money, debt is probably the oldest means of trade, with cash and barter transactions being later developments.
Sure, bartering isn’t the oldest, but the book doesn’t seem to discount bartering entirely.