This will explain the opposite: https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290

Last evening while we were out to beers, a friend recommended me a book apparently reviewing precisely this history: https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290

The Marxist hidden in me says

* listen to Richard Wolff's views on Puerto Rico http://www.rdwolff.com/tags/puerto_rico

* listen to David Graeber https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290

> a tension emerges in Florentine, and indeed in European, historiography between economic historians and the work of social and political historians

This reminds me of the competing narratives from economists versus anthropologists mentioned in Debt: The First 5000 years [0]. In it, the author argues that the economists' narrative is really a creation-myth (or perhaps an evolution-myth) for modern capitalism, rather than an accurate view of the different strategies humans have used in different circumstances.

[0]: http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1612191290

No, it wouldn't. Categorically.

If everyone repaid debts, then lending money wouldn't require interest. Interest expresses the danger that money may not be repaid as, for example, during bankruptcy proceedings.

Debt forgiveness has existed since the dawn of money. See [1] for more information.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1612191290

Terrible, terrible arrangement of ads alongside, and hilarious chart in article graphic.

Read this instead.

[http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1612191290]

For Reference:

David Graeber's original article: http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

David Graeber's Book, "Debt: The First 5,000 Years": http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290/

Fiat (credit) came first. As trust in central authorities broke down, barter & convertible currencies came into vogue.

A good book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1612191290