But that has cause and effect backwards. Nobody is claiming that money does not do that, but that it did not arise because of the inefficiency of barter.
i havent read the book yet, but i am surmising that the claim is that money originally arose in order to service debts, not because (at that time) it was more efficient?
No - the claim is that money fundamentally arose for taxation (either to the government or to the priests), and may also have been useful for long distance trade between partners with no expected long term relationships.