Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

TL;DR Don't read this book unless you have a couple of objective books on economy and politics under your belt. It is completely biased by the author's point of view, separating the wheat from the chaff isn't worth it.

Debt: The First 5,000 Years could have been a 4/5 for me. The first quarter is a really interesting mix of anthropology and economy, tons of interesting facts and insights with an original point of view, perhaps "a little too postmodern" (specially when it brings all human relations down to debt and transactions and power struggles), up to that point you can entertain the thought and enjoy the rest, but after that comes the deal breaker for me.

The book turns into a weak and cheap critique of capitalism, a big straw-man agains free markets. When it is not openly criticizing, it uses childish undertones and implies pretty much everything is uncle sam's fault. It even goes as far as saying that the Soviet Union collapsed only to imperialist pressure, it crossed a line for me there.

Whats more, I found the book to be dangerous; Not as in "prevent its distribution" but as in "you should do some mandatory reading before even trying this one".

It doesn't make a single suggestion on how things should be done, and after a 300 pages rant on capitalism with no alternatives, creates an "intelectual vacuum" that I believe is intended to make the reader fill it with left wing ideology.

Debunking David Graeber's weak arguments against capitalism and free markets was a good mental exercise though, Sunday's crosswords.