AccueilGroupesDiscussionsPlusTendances
Site de recherche
Ce site utilise des cookies pour fournir nos services, optimiser les performances, pour les analyses, et (si vous n'êtes pas connecté) pour les publicités. En utilisant Librarything, vous reconnaissez avoir lu et compris nos conditions générales d'utilisation et de services. Votre utilisation du site et de ses services vaut acceptation de ces conditions et termes.

Résultats trouvés sur Google Books

Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.

Chargement...

Dette : 5000 ans d'histoire (2011)

par David Graeber

Autres auteurs: Voir la section autres auteur(e)s.

MembresCritiquesPopularitéÉvaluation moyenneMentions
2,768705,147 (4.18)63
La 4ème de couverture indique : "En remettant en perspective l'histoire de la dette depuis cinq mille ans, David Graeber renverse magistralement les théories admises. Il démontre que l'endettement a toujours été une construction sociale fondatrice du pouvoir. Aujourd'hui encore, les économistes entretiennent une vieille illusion : celle que l'opprobre est forcément à jeter sur les débiteurs, jamais sur les créanciers. Et si l'unique moyen d'éviter l'explosion sociale était justement... d'effacer les dettes ? Cet essai essentiel et foisonnant, par une des plus grandes figures de la réflexion politique contemporaine (David Graeber a directement inspiré le mouvement Occupy Wall Street), permet de mieux comprendre l'histoire du monde, la crise du crédit en cours et l'avenir de notre économie"… (plus d'informations)
  1. 40
    Le capital au XXIe siècle par Thomas Piketty (waitingtoderail)
  2. 10
    The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve par G. Edward Griffin (fulner)
    fulner: Is debt a necessity that has helped advance civilization, or a conspiracy to keep the poor man down, the truth may lie somewhere between
Chargement...

Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre

Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre.

» Voir aussi les 63 mentions

Anglais (67)  Italien (1)  Roumain (1)  Allemand (1)  Toutes les langues (70)
Affichage de 1-5 de 70 (suivant | tout afficher)
La prima cosa da sapere su questo libro è che il suo autore, David Graeber, è un anarchico e che Debito è decisamente figlio di una visione anarchica del mondo e della storia. Quindi, se per voi le persone anarchiche sono quelle che spaccano le vetrine con un passamontagna in testa durante le manifestazioni, vi consiglio caldamente queste tre puntate (una, due e tre) del podcast di Riccardo Del Ferro dedicate appunto all’anarchia oggi.

Quindi, Debito ci offre un punto di vista al quale non siamo abituatə (immagino che non moltə tra voi abbiano dimestichezza con l’anarchismo, vista la brutta fama che sembra avere) e che non ha come scopo quello di convincere chi legge della sua veridicità, ma solo di farci dire: «Sai che? Non l’avevo mai pensata in questo modo...». Questo è uno dei motivi per i quali ho amato questo libro: non so se sono d’accordo con Graeber, ma mi ha procurato un certo sommovimento neuronale e questo mi piace assai.

Un altro motivo di apprezzamento per Debito è stata la sua ampia visione dei fenomeni umani: essendo Graeber un antropologo, il suo punto di vista è più globale che occidentale, un’altra cosa alla quale non siamo abituatə da queste parti. Non troverete l’idea che l’Occidente sia superiore ad altre parti del mondo (anzi… manco per niente).

E ancora, Graeber non fa ruotare tutto intorno al maschio. Sembra una stranezza, ma a me non vengono in mente molti autori di saggi che abbiano citato il femminismo come un’autorevole corrente di pensiero che potrebbe portare ottime soluzioni ai problemi che affliggono il pianeta (oltre al fatto che è stato in grado di spiegare molti eventi storici).

Infine, ho apprezzato il fatto che fosse un buon libro di divulgazione, molto scorrevole e niente affatto pesante, nonostante il tema non proprio alla mano: per il modo in cui affronta temi che pensiamo di conoscere bene o che diamo per scontato essere in una certa maniera finirete per divorarlo. ( )
  lasiepedimore | Jan 11, 2024 |
I was reading it for a month. It went tought, but I persisted, unearthing every now an then a nugget or two of incomparable wisdom. I'm an athropologist, so I may be biased, but...if you're short of time, read first pages on refutation of the barter idyll, and then fast forward on to the last chapter, conclusion and the afterword. Your world will never be the same again. No kiddin'. ( )
  Den85 | Jan 3, 2024 |
An excellent, highly readable history of debt, our conceptions of it and how it has affected our entire political life. Has a LOT of stories and anecdotes and stuff from various times in history. Skimpy on some details but that's inevitable when you're doing such a wide ranging history and he always says enough to illustrate his point. I disagree with some of the stuff he says from a Marxist perspective but it's not totally shit - it's just I think he does the typical anarchist thing of ascribing changes to an amorphous "state." Ultimately though I thoroughly enjoyed it. A radical book that does a great job of challenging our preconceived notions of economics and what's "natural", pointing the way towards radical change and providing a fascinating historical primer along the way. ( )
  tombomp | Oct 31, 2023 |
The author, an anthropologist, teaches a very large amount about the origins of money and the history of debt. It is eye-opening, partly because he also teaches a lot of history of peoples from many other times. He is stunningly knowledgeable about many areas. I was absorbed by this book and will read others of his. ( )
  RickGeissal | Aug 16, 2023 |
A bizarre mix of provocative evidence, absurd statements, wild speculations and exaggerated conclusions!

The first few chapters are dedicated to arguing that money originated as a unit of accounting for debts, and not as a valuable commodity acting as a unit of exchange to facilitate barter of goods, until in chapter 4 we are suddenly told that, after all, it's "obvious" that money is both these things!

Indeed, why would Sumerian accountants have used the silver shekel as a unit of account equivalent to a bushel of barley, if a silver shekel could not be exchanged for a bushel of barley? It must have been so, if for no other reason than that, if a silver shekel was worth one bushel of barley in the granary books, and worth half a bushel in the marketplace, a merchant could sell half a bushel in the market for a single shekel that would be credited to him as worth a whole bushel for tax purposes!

Villagers living cheek by jowl at the origin of money could indeed record who owed whom what; Graeber denies that this accounting of debt constituted barter though. Yet what did the baker originally expect to receive from the brewer in payment of his debt, if not beer, a useful commodity, or at least a beer-token or beer-credit? Surely the point of an IOU is that one owes a certain value, and this value would originally have to be stipulated as an amount of some useful thing, ideally in the most universally useful and easily circulated thing (in prisons, cigarettes; potentially, labour).

What seems to have seduced Graeber into obsessing over money's role as a unit of accounting for debt, rather than as a commodity for facilitating bartering, is simply the issue of time. As he writes, money started in Sumer as an accounting of debt to suppliers "to be settled at harvest time in barley or anything [debtors] might have at hand": so debt was really just a record of valuable commodities owed for payment at a later time! Debt was after all then just barter with a time-lag.

Of course trade between people who did not expect to have a continuous relationship would also naturally have to be settled by items of value to each of them; in circumstances without states or banks this must have been a commodity item: something desirable in itself like gold or cowrie shells, which are ornamental, durable and portable even at relatively high values. With the advent of states, and taxation being required in the form of certain stipulated things, the most natural form of tax was of course at first useful commodities like food delivered to the royal granary, or else commodity money exchangeable for other commodities.

Once states and banks could be relied on to honour them, credit notes could circulate as claims on gold and silver either sitting in banks or as promises to deliver them to the bearer. Later on, paper and electronic money could be detached from conversion into real commodities and continue to function throughout their assigned value as legal tender for paying taxes. But people will actually accept them to a greater or lesser degree (i.e. deflate or inflate their value) according to the more real value of goods and services in circulation: the value of money remains tied to the value of commodities. If the quantity of money available rises faster than the quantity of useful goods, then the price of goods rises and each banknote or electronic credit is worth less in real terms. We still therefore value money according to the amount of commodities it can claim, which is why (as Mike Beggs points out in his review) governments may no longer tie currency to gold, but they tie it instead by means of inflation-targetting to a basket of consumer goods: the value of money in terms of useful goods must be preserved at a reasonably stable level. If banks or the state or shops lost confidence in the ability of money to purchase a stable amount of goods, and demanded cigarettes instead, everybody would revert to commodity money. Which all goes to argue that money must be tied to commodities in order to function as a unit of accounting for debts: it must be a means of facilitating barter to have value for settling debts.

Graeber begins the book wondering why money debts should be paid. The reason surely is that borrowing money is an agreement to exchange values just like any other transaction: give me £1,000 today in exchange for £1,100 next month. One is supposed to keep one's promise to pay, and failure to do so is provided for in the agreed rules of the contract, or in the laws governing debt. Like any other transaction, in a fair society borrowing might be hedged around with rules that protect against exploitation and excessive suffering of defaulters; hence why we have regulations about how and when creditors must or may not be paid back. There is no "sacred principle" that debts must be paid, as Graeber writes: he apparently has not heard of insolvency law, in which creditors will be paid back as much money as can reasonably be generated, without the bankruptees having to enter debt-peonage or sell their children. I don't think we necessarily needed the history of debt this book attempts to give us, in order to answer questions of the ethics of debt-forgiveness. ( )
  fji65hj7 | May 14, 2023 |
Affichage de 1-5 de 70 (suivant | tout afficher)
aucune critique | ajouter une critique

» Ajouter d'autres auteur(e)s

Nom de l'auteurRôleType d'auteurŒuvre ?Statut
Graeber, DavidAuteurauteur principaltoutes les éditionsconfirmé
Andreano Weyland, JoanTraducteurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Chemla, FrançoiseTraductionauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Chemla, PaulTraductionauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Freundl, HansTraducteurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Gardner, GroverNarrateurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Gebauer, StephanTraducteurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Huizen, Pieter vanTraducteurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Kuźniarz, BartoszTłUmaczenieauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Larcher, LucaTraducteurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Piketty, ThomasIntroductionauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Prunetti, AlbertoTraducteurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Schäfer, UrselTraducteurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Scheffer, WybrandTraducteurauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Targański, TomaszWywiadauteur secondairequelques éditionsconfirmé
Vous devez vous identifier pour modifier le Partage des connaissances.
Pour plus d'aide, voir la page Aide sur le Partage des connaissances [en anglais].
Titre canonique
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Titre original
Titres alternatifs
Date de première publication
Personnes ou personnages
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Lieux importants
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Évènements importants
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Films connexes
Épigraphe
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
debt
noun 1 a sum of money owed. 2 the state of owing money. 3 a feeling of gratitude for a favour or service.
--Oxford English Dictionary
If you owe the bank a hundred thousand dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, you own the bank. --American Proverb
Dédicace
Premiers mots
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Two years ago, by a series of strange coincidences, I found myself attending a garden party at Westminster Abbey.
Citations
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
It's money that had made it possible for us to imagine ourselves in the way economists encourage us to do: as a collection of individuals and nations whose main business is swapping things.
Derniers mots
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
(Cliquez pour voir. Attention : peut vendre la mèche.)
Notice de désambigüisation
Directeur de publication
Courtes éloges de critiques
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Langue d'origine
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
DDC/MDS canonique
LCC canonique
La 4ème de couverture indique : "En remettant en perspective l'histoire de la dette depuis cinq mille ans, David Graeber renverse magistralement les théories admises. Il démontre que l'endettement a toujours été une construction sociale fondatrice du pouvoir. Aujourd'hui encore, les économistes entretiennent une vieille illusion : celle que l'opprobre est forcément à jeter sur les débiteurs, jamais sur les créanciers. Et si l'unique moyen d'éviter l'explosion sociale était justement... d'effacer les dettes ? Cet essai essentiel et foisonnant, par une des plus grandes figures de la réflexion politique contemporaine (David Graeber a directement inspiré le mouvement Occupy Wall Street), permet de mieux comprendre l'histoire du monde, la crise du crédit en cours et l'avenir de notre économie"

Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque

Description du livre
Résumé sous forme de haïku

Discussion en cours

Aucun

Couvertures populaires

Vos raccourcis

Genres

Classification décimale de Melvil (CDD)

332Social sciences Economics Finance

Classification de la Bibliothèque du Congrès

Évaluation

Moyenne: (4.18)
0.5
1 4
1.5 1
2 12
2.5 3
3 48
3.5 10
4 161
4.5 22
5 162

Est-ce vous ?

Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing.

 

À propos | Contact | LibraryThing.com | Respect de la vie privée et règles d'utilisation | Aide/FAQ | Blog | Boutique | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliothèques historiques | Critiques en avant-première | Partage des connaissances | 202,660,922 livres! | Barre supérieure: Toujours visible