The most salient aspect of this article for me was this:
"Graeber asserts that the barter myth implies humans have always had a sort of quid pro quo, exchange-based mentality, since barter is just a less efficient version of money. But if you consider that other, completely different systems existed, then money starts to look like less of a natural outgrowth of human nature, and more of a choice."
It also is fascinating how deeply rooted in story telling, not historical accuracy, these ideas are.
The most salient aspect of this article for me was this:
"Graeber asserts that the barter myth implies humans have always had a sort of quid pro quo, exchange-based mentality, since barter is just a less efficient version of money. But if you consider that other, completely different systems existed, then money starts to look like less of a natural outgrowth of human nature, and more of a choice."
It also is fascinating how deeply rooted in story telling, not historical accuracy, these ideas are.