ATROPOS PRESS
new york • dresden


General Editor:
Wolfgang Schirmacher
Editorial Board:
Giorgio Agamben
Pierre Alferi
Hubertus von Amelunxen
Alain Badiou
Judith Balso
Judith Butler
Diane Davis
Chris Fynsk
Martin Hielscher
Geert Lovink
Larry Rickels
Avital Ronell
Michael Schmidt
Fredrich Ulfers
Victor Vitanza
Siegfried Zielinski
Slavoj Žižek

© 2015 by Jędrzej Malko
Think Media EGS Series is supported by the European Graduate School
Cover art: Adam Borowski
ATROPOS PRESS
New York • Dresden

151 First Avenue # 14, New York, N.Y. 10003
all rights reserved
978-1-940813-77-6


E conomics and Its Dis contents
-ĊGU]HM0DONR



Acknowledgements:
I am grateful to many for their invaluable discussions, insights, and
VXSSRUW , ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN 0LNRáDM Borucki, Prof. Vivienne Brown,
Prof. David Hawkes, Prof. Jerzy Jedlicki, Jakub Krzeski, Dr Bartosz
.XĨQLDU] Prof. Germano Maifreda, Krzysztof Pacewicz, Tadeusz
7HOHĪ\ĔVNL and to Aleksandra Piejka, my love, for taking their time to
read the early manuscript of this book and help me refine the argument. I
am also very grateful to Elena Rozbicka for proof-reading the manuscript
DQGWR$GDP%RURZVNLIRUWKHFRYHUDUWZRUNDQGWR3DZHá0DONRIRUWKH
cover idea.
I would like to express my gratitude to the internet communities of
anonymous pirates and intellectual property thiefs who break copyright
laws and let academic books and articles into circulation. Without you I
would never have been able to do my research.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and my dear friends for the
support they gave me while I was working on these pages. Also,
apologies are in place for all those times I lost myself in the library and
didn’t show up when I should have. I owe you one!



Contents :
Chapter 1…………………………………………………………………..…………..11
In which the purpose of this study is outlined.

Chapter 2…………………………………………………………………..…………..13
In which the analytical approach of discoursive materialism is explained.

Chapter 3…………………………………………………………………..…………..19
In which the myth of barter is debunked.

Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………..…………..23
In which the concept of debt regime is introduced.

Chapter 5…………………………………………………………………..…………..29
In which the violent beginnings of the institution of money are recalled.

Chapter 6…………………………………………………………………..…………..35
In which it is shown how Greek economic discourse was shaped by opposing political
factions.

Chapter 7…………………………………………………………………..…………..41
In which it is argued that the existence of a longing for the good old days doesn’t mean
that they have ever existed.

Chapter 8…………………………………………………………………..…………..45
In which we point out that economic growth is relatively new phenomenon.

Chapter 9…………………………………………………………………..…………..51
In which the interplay between religious and economic discourses is introduced.


Chapter 10…………………………………………………………………..…………55
In we recognize the institutional character of private property and visit time when it was
of secondary importance to constellations of power.

Chapter 11…………………………………………………………………..…………61
In which it is argued that the issue of usury was so dire because it violated the logic of
arithmetical justice and endangered interests that hinged upon it.

Chapter 12…………………………………………………………………..…………67
In which, by acknowledging the significance of Arabic economics, we pretend that this
study is not so Eurocentric.

Chapter 13…………………………………………………………………..…………71
Which puts Friedmanite monetarism in an appropriate, medieval, context.

Chapter 14……………………………………………………………………………..77
In which a transition from feudal to capitalist Europe is sketched.


Chapter 15…………………………………………………………………..………...83
Which shows how the market became a space of spontaneous order and how exchange
ceased to be arithmetical.

C hapter 16 …………………………………………………………………..…………87
In which it is shown how money became capital.

C hapter 17 …………………………………………………………………..…………91
In which we s ee that the Italian R enais s ance didn’t give rebirth to humanity;
nevertheles s it left offs pring in the form of modern bookkeeping.


C hapter 18 …………………………………………………………………..………..99
In which historical, static patterns of consumption are explained, and then their
breakdown, as well as legal attempts to defend them are presented.

C hapter 19 …………………………………………………………………..………..107
In which we study an economic school that has never existed.

C hapter 20 …………………………………………………………………..………..115
In which the emergence of population as an economic subject is considered.

C hapter 21 …………………………………………………………………..………..119
In which the synthesizing effects of bodily and organic metaphors are explained.

C hapter 22 …………………………………………………………………..………..125
In which the relationship between P rotestantism and the rise of capitalism is discussed.

C hapter 23 …………………………………………………………………..………..129
In which it is explained that supposedly secular liberal political economics are more
sacral than the economics of Aquinas ever were.

C hapter 24 …………………………………………………………………..………..133
In which two main outlooks on international commerce are outlined.

C hapter 25 …………………………………………………………………..………..145
Which shows how perilous passions were turned into legitimate interests.

C hapter 26 …………………………………………………………………..………..149
In which iconoclasm as a mode of critique is critiqued.

C hapter 27 …………………………………………………………………..………..153

In which an example of iconoclastic argument from seventeenth-century E ngland is
presented.

C hapter 28 …………………………………………………………………..………..157
In which we see that economic freedom was instrumental for the market equalizing
machine.

C hapter 29 …………………………………………………………………..………..165
In which we see the roots and fruits of the scarcity figure.


Chapter 30 …………………………………………………………………..………..173
In which it is shown how liberal political economy was used to legitimize nineteenthcentury economic genocide.

C hapter 31 …………………………………………………………………..………..179
In which a time is shown when everyone understood that economic and political
freedoms aren’t the same.

C hapter 32 …………………………………………………………………..………..183
In which we see that classic liberals were rebellious pro-statists.

C hapter 33 …………………………………………………………………..………..191
In which impact of banking on the regime of debt is inspected.

C hapter 34 …………………………………………………………………..………..199
A short but important chapter which shows how economics is blind to the political nature
of money and its disciplining effects. Also, a chapter in which the worthlessness of the
radical notion of value is outlined.

C hapter 35 …………………………………………………………………..………..205

In which it shown how intellectual property was established by business fighting business
in British courts.

C hapter 36 …………………………………………………………………..………..211
Which argues that Adam S mith was not the father of economics.

C hapter 37 …………………………………………………………………..………..215
Which shows that socialist and liberal economics are not that different.

C hapter 38 …………………………………………………………………..………..221
Which inspects a few important tropes of labor struggles.

C hapter 39 …………………………………………………………………..………..229
In which essential shortcomings of Marx’s economics are outlined.

C hapter 40 …………………………………………………………………..………..239
Which explains why the “working class” can never win the “class struggle.”

C hapter 41 …………………………………………………………………..………..245
In which we take look at the so-called “marginalist revolution.”

C hapter 42 …………………………………………………………………..………..249
In which psychological premises and logical tautologies behind the figure of homo
economicus are inspected.

C hapter 43 …………………………………………………………………..………..257
In which the historical role of historical schools of economics is outlined.

C hapter 44 …………………………………………………………………..………..265
In which mathematicization of economics and its use of abstract theorizing is criticized.



Chapter 45…………………………………………………………………..………..273
Which shows why Keynes was no K eynesian.

C hapter 46 …………………………………………………………………..………..279
In which it is explained why in the twentieth century the enthusiasm for central planning
was shared on the both sides of the Iron C urtain.

C hapter 47 …………………………………………………………………..………..283
Which shows that economic game theory is a war game.

C hapter 48 ……………………………………………………………………………291
In which modern consumption is studied as a field of power and domination.

C hapter 49 …………………………………………………………………..………..299
In which the sad frutilessness of the postmodern left is explained.

C hapter 50 …………………………………………………………………..………..307

Notes ……………………………………………………………………………………311
B ibliography………………………….………………………………………………353



Chapter 1:
In which the purpos e of this s tudy is outlined.

Already too many spectres have haunted the people, and for too long
the people have unreflectively worshipped various spectres. Countless

manifestos have fruitlessly promised to lead the people on the road from
serfdom, out of the dark tunnel of necessity, and into the daylight of
abundance. And yet, few people have asked: what is this spectre? And
how is it possible that the more unwaveringly it promises to unchain the
people, the heavier are the shackles which ultimately bind them?
There is an urgent need for a narrative on economics that will allow
us to grasp the role it has been playing in the constellations of power
throughout the ages. An attempt at such an analysis is the main purpose
of this study. It should be noted that at no point is it postulated that all
historical power struggles could or should be reduced to the realm of
economy. The cognitive value of bringing all dimensions of social reality
under one common denominator is negative. The search for any one
prime mover, the true and hidden structure, or some general logic of
history is always harmful. The attraction of simple answers lies not in
what they reveal about the world, but in how much they hide from us,
making life less complicated than it should be. That said, one doesn’t
have to fall into traps of crude economic reductionism to acknowledge the
role economics plays in modern systems of power. On the contrary, it is
hardly possible to analyse the economics of power without appreciation
for the power of economics.


Economics and Its Discontents

12

Political struggles that shape worldwide economic infrastructures are
largely informed by economic discourses, and the legitimacy of the
decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of billions of people and,
ultimately, the natural environment of this planet are often derived from

this or that economic doctrine. What’s more, in the course of this study it
will be shown that today economistic narratives, figures, and modes of
thinking have contaminated areas of life whose economic nature until
recently had not been considered self-evident. Economics has burst its
banks and spilled over a terrain so vast that today we don’t even speak
about society, culture, and people, but rather about social capital, cultural
capital, and human capital. Resources to be invested with hope for a nice
rate of return.
To challenge the status quo one has to first understand it. Without
untangling the relationship between economics and other discourses,
cultural formations, and institutions, there can be no meaningful response
to problems arising at the multiple tangent points between politics,
economy, and economics. Hopefully, this study will productively
contribute to a debate on such a response, providing some insight into the
basic dynamics of mainstream economics and its pivotal motifs. This
historical perspective is meant to provide a much needed context for the
most present issues. Only if we really grasp the fact that there has never
been a critical difference between the main schools of economics, if we
appreciate how much they are alike and recognize the synthesizing logic
with which they operate, will we be able to cut through the threadbare
and barren debates between left and right and work out a truly fruitful
understanding of political economy.


Chapter 2:
In which the analytical approach
of discoursive materialism in explained.
In the past two or three decades, it has been often claimed that the
discussion on economics is changing. The rigorous modernist claim that
economics is a positive, norm-free science has been challenged numerous

times. Klamer argued in 1990 that “seeing economy as a discourse and
exploring its rhetorical dimensions, to which their works inspire, seems to
bring new life to the conversation about economics.” 1And indeed, some
discoursive analysis of the economic genre has been applied. Economists
are not completely unaware of what poststructuralist theory has to offer,
and they occasionally employ the devices of (a kind of) literary
deconstruction or (a rudimentary) genealogical analysis. To name a few
examples, there were attempts to apply poststructuralist critique to
Marxist thought, 2 to treat neoliberalism with Gramsci, 3 to show
foundationalism of liberal doctrines 4 and to apply rhetorical analysis to
Friedman 5 or Keynes. 6 Henderson pointed to the potential benefits of
conceptualising economics in literary terms, 7 while Klamer made a case
for appreciating the discursive and rhetorical dimensions of economics. 8
McCloskey published several interesting books on the latter subject. All
in all, economics is supposed to enter a “tempestuous season.” 9
Yet, this tempest seems to be ultimately a sort of dry thunderstorm,
both in economic discourse and discourse on economics. Possibly it
shouldn’t be surprising that mainstream economists couldn’t care less for
some philosophical, epistemological quibbles. But not only the
“interpretive turn” hasn’t reached mainstream economics, 10 but the
challenges formulated on the margins of the discourse usually utilize
poststructuralist arguments only as a way to establish themselves as the


Economics and Its Discontents

14

new orthodoxy. It seems that the trench warfare between different
economic schools continues, while all sides slowly learn to use new

stylistic armaments. And as will be shown later, it is hardly a new thing in
the history of economics.
No comprehensive critique of economic genre has been formed yet. I
would argue, that without providing a more general framework for
thinking about economics, the cognitive value of discoursive analysis will
be lost and will deteriorate into the very blind instruments of power it
seeks to dismantle. Whilst deconstructing economic knowledge is
certainly indispensible to understanding it, it needs to be a part of a much
bigger project. Otherwise it may be that studying rhetorical devices used
to established legitimacy for this or that theorem will end up just another
way to publish an academic paper. The sole claim that “economists have
become to some extent prisoners of their tools” 11 is as much true as it is
analytically barren.
Such comprehensive critique of economics must be based on a study
of its history. Without proper historical context, it is simply impossible to
grasp the dynamic of power struggles on a systemic level. Debord warns
that:
The precious advantage that the spectacle has drawn from the outlawing of
history, from having condemned the recent past to clandestinity, and from
having made everyone forget the spirit of history within society, is above
all the ability to cover its own history of the movement of its recent world
conquest. Its power already seems familiar, as if it had always been there.
All usurpers have wanted to make us forget that they have only just
arrived. 12

The analytical value of the idea of the spectacle will be discussed later
(Chapter 27), but for now let us concur that oblivion of the past ensures
that the present remains unchallenged. Even if one tries to do so, without
the knowledge of the past he or she is stuck in the vicious circle of



Economics and Its Discontents

15

repeating the same age-old arguments in the same age-old debates and
making the same “groundbreaking” discoveries as had been made
countless times before.
Therefore, to a significant extent this is a historical study.
However, it is neither a history of ideas nor is it purely a materialistic
history of economic practices. As hopefully will be illustrated by this
thesis, a proper examination of social phenomena needs to abandon the
timeworn methodological dichotomy between spirit and body (which has
typically expressed itself in the Christian preference for the former or the
materialist for the latter). As Schmitt argues, constructing a contrast
between these two spheres only to dissolve it by reducing one into the
other must result in a caricature. 13 Thus, I will be looking for
interdependencies between economic discourses, institutions, and
practices, trying not to privilege any one of them. Study of discourse that
disregards study of practice is rootless and toothless. Study of practice
that doesn’t see its discoursive underpinnings is no study at all.
Vries rightly complains that “historians are prone to labour under the
misapprehension that one can answer fundamental questions about a
phenomenon by seeking its origins. There one hopes to observe naked,
innocent acts that reveal the true character of what is later shrouded in
mystery.” 14 The search for such original sin is futile. Thus, instead of
giving way to such archaic methodology and looking for points of rupture
that put in motion successive historical periods, I propose to analyze
history as a story about a multitude of discourses, institutions, and
practices that dynamically change their configuration, forming various

power structures. Perhaps it could be described not by a genealogical
metaphor, which suggests themes of evolution, generational succession
and family resemblances, but, if you forgive me this high-flown
metaphor, as a history of constellations. Hardly ever does a really new


Economics and Its Discontents

16

star appear on the night sky or an old one vanish from it, but each of the
myriad stars pulsates with varying brightness, and time after time we
decide to look at a chosen few of them as if they were somehow
meaningfully connected. And, after all, on some level they really are
interconnected, influencing each other constantly by their gravitational
and electromagnetic forces.
For some decades now, social theory has been growing in the climate
of,

to

use

metanarratives.

Lyotard’s
15

clichéd


expression,

incredulity

toward

It is accepted to study localized politics of resistance,

explore “the lonely struggle of the prisoner in his cell,” 16 to give voice to
groups previously silenced and expelled to the margins. Narratives that
are scaled to a more general level of analysis stink of sorcery, of crude
Marxism, of Enlightenment hubris. But while distrust towards totalizing,
or homogenizing narratives is understandable, it too often becomes an
excuse not to think on a more global and general level. The justified
hostility towards the way of thinking associated with grand narratives is
too easily extended to the object of such analysis. Rejection of
structuralist approaches too often leads to refusal to analyze global
structures. I would argue that this is the equivalent of throwing the baby
out with the bathwater.
Today, to find our feet in the world, we desperately need narratives
that are big, even grand, along with those that are small and localized. As
long as we remember that they all have their blind spots and limitations,
as long as we resist the temptations of reductionism, they can serve us
well. What’s indispensable in this endeavor is a sort of intellectual
humility that allows for no more than just pointing to some impermanent
tendencies, shaky patterns, and a few cautious generalizations. As little as
this. A much as this.


Economics and Its Discontents


17

This discussion is not to be enclosed within one subdivision of
academic field. It will bring in diverse issues, ranging from the military
conquests of Alexander the Great to Elizabethan theater, from the
scholastic stance on probability to the birth of modern consumer credit.
However, it would be imprecise to say that the approach will be
multidisciplinary. Rather, one can expect from this work an attempt at an
unidisciplinary approach. It is not about bringing together various
perspectives on one subject but proposing an analytical framework that
could be used to further our understanding of various subjects.
The book is structured around 50 short chapters, each of them
tackling a specific topic and presenting yet another side of the problems
at issue. The chapters are organized more or less chronologically,
although that rule is sometimes bent. I recommend that they are read
consecutively, however, the narrative is not strictly linear and at times a
topic touched on in one chapter is picked up in another one. Such links
are usually indicated by the number of the chapter put in brackets. The
argument will proceed in a somewhat discontinuous way precisely
because the broadness of the subject at issue renders linear narratives
useless. Perhaps it cannot be cut open with a one-dimensional, however
sharp, argument, but must be entwined by a net-like one. Hopefully, the
insights we are fishing for will not slip through.
Finally, I must acknowledge that the decision to operate on a level of
general analysis in search of systemic interdependencies comes at a cost.
Tackling a wide range of issues means that none of them is fathomed
completely, and many are certainly treated with less attention than they
deserve. This is also partly due to an attempt to make this work as
succinct and to the point as possible. Writing lengthy papers is a threefold

sin: of smugness, style, and lack of consideration for the reader.


Economics and Its Discontents

18

Although I stand by my research and have put a lot of effort into
ensuring that no factual mistakes were made, I accept that in many fields
I remain an amateur. I therefore welcome all possible corrections and
criticisms.
My only hope is that these criticisms will not bring the discussion
back to the level of particulars. Succumbing to the terror of details bars us
from any chance of understanding the world we live in. To say that things
are more complicated is always true, but only at times does it contribute
to our understanding of the issues at stake.
Thus, demolish my arguments all you want, but please, do it in order
to go beyond them and not to step back.


Chapter 3:
In which the myth of barter is debunked.
Barter (verb)
mid-15c., apparently from Old French barater, to cheat, deceive, haggle
Online Etymology Dictionary

Few concepts are more central to modern economics than that of
barter. After Adam Smith proclaimed that “the propensity to truck, barter,
and exchange one thing for another” 17 is inherent in human nature, this
claim has been repeated countless times, becoming “the great founding

myth of the discipline of economics.” 18 The existence of barter has been
often presented as a historical fact, usually in narratives telling stories of
the gradual progress of humanity: once upon a time there was barter,
which was natural, but very inconvenient, so people came up with money
to supplant it. “It needed conscious reasoning power of Man to make the
step from simple barter to money-accounting” tells Crowther, who was
editor of The Economist from 1938 to 1956, in his Outline of Money. 19
This story has become a sort of common sense understanding.
One can notice that in modern economic textbooks, barter is no
longer presented as a stage in economic history, but rather as a imaginary
figure. Graber collected several instances of this: “To see that benefits
from a medium of exchange imagine a barter economy,” write Begg,
Fisher and Dornbuch. “Imagine the difficulty you would have today, if
you had to exchange your labor directly for the fruits of someone else’s
labor,” propose Maunder, Myers, Wall and Miller. “Imagine,” suggest
Parkin and King, “you have roosters, but you want roses.” 20
This move from grounding argument in historical narrative to
abstract theorizing surely is linked with the general concession to abstract
reasoning (see chapter 44), but it has another quality as well. Being solely
an abstract figure in a thought experiment, it cannot be falsified with


Economics and Its Discontents

20

historical evidence. This is priceless, because the fact is that there is no
historical evidence that an economy sustained by barter has ever existed.
Anthropologists have “discovered an almost endless variety of economic
systems. But to this day, no one has been able to locate a part of the world

where the ordinary mode of economic transaction between neighbors
takes the form of ‘I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow’.” 21 In the
words of one Cambridge anthropologist: “No example of barter economy,
pure and simple, has ever been described. […] all available ethnography
suggests that there never has been such thing.” 22
Of course, there are specific cases in which barter exchange occurs,
and does so on a significant scale. It is a legitimate form of settling
accounts in all capitalist markets. In the 1980s around 40 percent of EastWest trade involved some degree of barter. 23 Inmates in many prisons use
various barter systems to exchange items on a black market. However, it
has never been employed as a regular way of handling economic
interactions between fellow villagers. Abundant data on various exchange
systems that could be labeled as barter shows that it only “takes place
between strangers, even enemies,” 24 and “all such cases of trade through
barter have in common that they are meetings with strangers who will,
likely as not, never meet again, and with whom one certainly will not
enter into any ongoing relations […] each side makes their trade and
walks away.” 25
Confusion about the pervasiveness of barter amongst humans may
have arisen from the fact that many regimes of exchange may appear to
the unaided eye like barter systems, although in fact they are nothing of
the sort. The prevailing system of settling accounts within European
societies, a system that predated capitalist and even feudal modes of
exchange and for a long time co-existed with them, was the system of


Economics and Its Discontents

21

account money, which was “an ideal unit of measure that allows the

evaluation of goods that are exchanged.” 26
It existed only in the mind and in writing. It was a measure of value used
for accounting purposes, and the value of other commodities, including
actual coinage, would be measured against this standard. The system of
money of account most common in medieval Europe was that of pounds,
shillings, and pence, which was based on multiples of twelve (the
duodecimal system), as opposed to ten (the decimal system). It was
introduced possibly as early as the seventh century, but given prominence
by the financial reforms of the Emperor Charlemagne in the late eighth
century. 27

- writes Wood, but account money and object money (see chapter 5) have
been used long before the seventh century. It was used in ancient Egypt,
where the unit was grain, whose value was subjected to careful regulation
by administrative authorities. 28 One can also see in the Homeric epics that
we all know from school that people measured the value of ships and
armor in oxen, but of course they never actually paid for anything in
oxen. 29 Davies argues that because the taming of animals preceded
agriculture, cattle preceded the use of grain as the unit of account
money 30 and have occupied a role so central in it’s evolution that
etymologically the term “capital” is a derivative from cattle. 31
In early Germanic law codes, a monetary value was assigned not
only to property but to people as well (“wergild”), detailing
compensations due for various degrees of bodily harm, murder, and
manslaughter, somewhat prefiguring modern insurance calculations that
evaluate people’s health in terms of percentages of bodily damage.
Everything and everybody quite literally had a price. For example, from
the earliest known Anglo-Saxon laws, the dooms of Aethelberht of Kent
(602–3) we read that “If anyone lies with a maiden belonging to the king,
he is to pay 50 shillings compensation.” But of course 50 shillings would

not have been paid, not just because the economy was largely nonmonetary at that stage, but because neither the shilling, nor even the
penny, was then in circulation. 32


22

Economics and Its Discontents

This imaginary money was used to settle accounts even in seventeenth
century Europe, providing a matrix for economic exchange that had
nothing to do with the direct exchange of goods for other goods and
everything to do with communal debt regimes, which are the subject of
the next chapter.


Chapter 4:
In which the concept of debt regime is introduced.
The debt shall be paid, said Crito;
is there anything else?
Plato

Many readers may remember that in the Homeric epics, which
are set in a pre-monetary context, the exchange of gifts plays an important
role in establishing relationships between the protagonists. 33 Another
well-known, or perhaps even the best known, instance of gift exchange is
the one between the Queen of Sheba and Solomon. 34 Although the figure
of barter is so well-rooted in economic discourse that sometimes gift
exchanges are presented as a yet another form of barter, 35 ever since
Malinowski’s studies of the Kula ring in the Trobriand Islands and
Mauss’s conceptualization of gift economies, there has been enough

research on the structures of reciprocity that it is generally recognized as
a separate institution, with its own specificities. Modern mainstream
economists may still struggle with the very concept of giving gifts and
consider it a wasteful ritual, hence “any transfer of resources which was
not chosen by the recipient through the market will generally be
inefficient.” 36 However, few would argue that gift economies didn’t exist,
or that elaborate gift exchange systems didn’t play important social
functions both within communities and in diplomatic encounters between
them.
For that reason, some radical thinkers look to “gift economies”
as a potential site of resistance to capitalist ordering of the economy.
However, gift systems have never constituted the primary regime of
economic life. They are interesting institutions, certainly worth exploring,
but all things considered, they should be rather treated as phenomena that


24

Economics and Its Discontents

were historically of secondary importance to the distribution of power.
Leaving aside the instances of Mesopotamian kingdoms and ancient
Egypt where circulation of wealth was centrally managed with only an
embryonic market system functioning on the sidelines of a highly
regulated temple economy, 37 for a very long time, the majority of day-today dealings were not subject to administrative decrees or to the monetary
market economy, but were part of a social debt regime.
Debt regime can be understood as a system of recognizing mutual
obligations within a given group that ensuries stability and the continuity
of economic exchange by disciplining the parties engaged in it to abide
by their agreements. And the fact is, that long before the establishment of

monetary economy, through the Middle Ages and even far into the
eighteenth century, a majority of everyday transactions operated on the
basis of personal credit, through the use of imaginary account money as
well as with the aid of various tallies, tokens, and ledgers. 38 The
commonly repeated narrative of the credit system being a late
development in the history of economic exchange, which supposedly
moved from the most concrete forms (barter) to the most fictitious ones
(financial derivatives), a story about the victory of abstract over
concrete, 39 is simply not true. Credit was central to everyday communal
life constituting “a complex and intricate network of personal ties, […]
based on personal agreements, many of which were struck verbally in
face-to-face interactions.” 40 And it was central to wholesale trade and
manufacturing as well; “wholesale trade in wool, cloth, wine, tin and so
on […] all stages in the woolen clothing industry […] sales of land and of
rents […] were commonly conducted through extending credit.” 41
English merchants, shopkeepers, farmers, manufacturers, and consumers
had developed an elaborate credit network based on personal agreements.
One historian estimates that by the first half of the seventeenth century, the