> Debt: The First 5000 years deserves props for debunking the myth of barter coming before credit
Barter is just trading without the use of money. It isn't mutually exclusive with credit. What Graeber describes in his book is still barter. It's just a primitive credit system based promises of goods and services instead of promises of money.
Barter involves agreeing on a specific exchange rate. Graeber describes (among other things, of course) systems in which that doesn't happen; systems in which debt isn't quantified, but instead a general sense of who has been more generous to whom over their lifetimes.
>Barter involves agreeing on a specific exchange rate
This does not match with any definition that I've seen. Graeber debunks a parable used by Adam Smith and economists used to explain why money is more efficient than barter. The problem is that the central thesis of the parable still stands: trade is more efficient with through a medium of exchange.
Graeber's examples of early debt are reciprocal. Otherwise, there would be no need to record them. Sure, it's not as transactional as money is, but it's a transaction nonetheless. I'll admit it's not immediate, but I don't think that's a particularly meaningful distinction. It's not particularly difficult to trust a farmer within your community when they say they'll offer you grain in the future during harvest season. They'd risk ostracization if they break their promise, which is close to a death sentence in that era.
I remember several examples of qualitative generosity and not quantitative reciprocity, but it was a while since I read the book, so I accept that I might remember incorrectly.
Barter is just trading without the use of money. It isn't mutually exclusive with credit. What Graeber describes in his book is still barter. It's just a primitive credit system based promises of goods and services instead of promises of money.