[rockyleal]

The first 2 lines of the article are these:

"The fundamental theories on which the modern science of political economy is based are these:

    That under primitive conditions men lived and live by barter"

The basic premise, that barter was (and is) by which 'primitive' (whatever that is) live, has been thoroughly debunked by contemporary anthropologists of money. David Graeber's 'Debt: The first 5000 years" is a must read for anyone interested in the topic of theory of money from the anthroological (i.e., empirical) perspective:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

[scott_s]

I read "Debt" as well, so I had the same reaction. But it should hearten you that the author agrees! Two paragraphs down, he argues:

"But modern research in the domain of commercial history and numismatics, and especially recent discoveries in Babylonia, have brought to light a mass of evidence which was not available to the earlier economists, and in the light of which it may be positively stated that none of these theories rest on a solid basis of historical proof—that in fact they are false."

A few paragraphs later, he even says:

"In both these instances in which Adam Smith believes that he has discovered a tangible currency, he has, in fact, merely found—credit."

In other words, the author who wrote this piece, A. Mitchell Innes in 1913, is one of those "contemporary anthropologists of money."

[romwell]

Right, and if you read beyond the first 2 lines, you'll find that the whole point of the article is to establish that these lines are false.

[ucaetano]

That's actually quite a poor book. It essentially defines debt as any, absolutely any, sense of liability towards another being. When you define it like that, it isn't only true that debt predate money, it's obvious.

Besides that, the book is a collection of anecdotes carefully selected to try to paint a coherent picture. It is clearly written by someone who doesn't understand economics, to a public that doesn't understand economics.

It is so full of basic mistakes that it is hard to decide if the problem is ignorance, laziness or malice.

But it sells well!

[joosters]

Can you give a few examples of the basic mistakes in the book, please?

[ucaetano]

Sure:

"Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s"

The level of stupidity in this quote is unbearable. Basic fact checking for 5 seconds on Google would have been enough...

Now take that and apply the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

And that's before we get into ignominious phrasing such as "I would like to end, then, by putting in a word for the non-industrious poor. At least they aren't hurting anyone."

Debt is a book written backwards. It starts with and idea: capitalism is bad and debt is the instrument of capitalism. It then piles up and links selected - but vague and frequently unsourced - anecdotes to try to create a logic supporting that idea.

From an economics perspective, it isn't even wrong. But it does sound appealing to anyone who has debt or dislikes capitalism. Therefore, I expect a lot of downvotes.

[Edit: typos]