4 ms·

"I think it has less impact unless you studied/read a little classic economics." I suspect that most people would repeat the claim that the chain of events was

"I think it has less impact unless you studied/read a little classic economics." I suspect that most people would repeat the claim that the chain of events was barter leading to coinage of some sort. Debunking that on its own is interesting. Other interesting ideas are: * that in order to manage debt there needs to be (as there was historically) regular corrections to whatever debt system is in operation (the jubilee being his historical example). * once debt is quantized and mensurable the emotional, social origins of debt are destroyed Regardless of the validity of his thesis I found the comparitive anthropology, history and literature interesting. I find your last statement confusing. It seems to suggest simultaneously that there might be an average reader who is educated in mainstream ideas and will find the book revolutionary, and also average readers who are undeducated and will not find it revolutionary and finally anarchists (which is what Graeber is) who will also find it revolutionary. I did not like the writing style, but I thought the content highly stimulating. It is definitely worth a read.

dalbasal 9y ago
Revolutionary as in the "different from conventional" rather than "en route to revolution." I guess my choice of words was poor for this case. :) It's not just educated, but also interested. For two reasons.. the first is that a nuanced change to the origin of money narrative is not really interesting in itself, without the context. 2nd, because the really interesting implications (imo) come from merging the barter and debt narratives. He doesn't get into it very explicitly. A lot of modern economics (eg much of Friedman's work) orbits the money multiplication concept. (1)Savers deposit money. (2)Banks lend the money. (3) borrowers buy a house with it. (4/1)The money gets redoposited by by the seller (5/2) banks lend the money.... Each time they lend the money, the total amount of money in existence (in people's bank account) multiplies. This process controls the supply of money, and its inflation implications. It's how (most) money gets created. It relates to banking stability. Business cycles. Stimulus. A lot of the complicated implications of money stem from here. Graebers story is more elegant, with a single mechanism. It's all debt. The banking money multiplier predates money, and is the real way money came to be. I immediately thought of bitcoin. My current thinking is that bitcoin will be real money when people start borrowing it, not when they start buying stuff with it. Or else, maybe bitcoin is not really significant since it's just a way of denominating money. Anarchists will be interested for the anthropology, the history of debt rebellions and such. Not a lot of anarchists out there, so I assume modern writing from anarchist perspectives is generally interesting to them.
- pesmhey 9y ago
  To your comment on borrowing bitcoin, a few exchanges are selling futures, which you can short. This started relatively recently - December.
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    Well there you go. Does that count as debt though? Money and bitcoin would be exchanged simultaneously so no one ever owes anyone anything. I guess futures are an "obligation"...
    - pesmhey 9y ago
      Shorting actually puts you in debt - you borrow the shares and immediately sell them. So yeah, from this point-of-view, it looks like you're assertion is correct.

dalbasal 9y ago

Revolutionary as in the "different from conventional" rather than "en route to revolution." I guess my choice of words was poor for this case. :) It's not just educated, but also interested. For two reasons.. the first is that a nuanced change to the origin of money narrative is not really interesting in itself, without the context. 2nd, because the really interesting implications (imo) come from merging the barter and debt narratives. He doesn't get into it very explicitly. A lot of modern economics (eg much of Friedman's work) orbits the money multiplication concept. (1)Savers deposit money. (2)Banks lend the money. (3) borrowers buy a house with it. (4/1)The money gets redoposited by by the seller (5/2) banks lend the money.... Each time they lend the money, the total amount of money in existence (in people's bank account) multiplies. This process controls the supply of money, and its inflation implications. It's how (most) money gets created. It relates to banking stability. Business cycles. Stimulus. A lot of the complicated implications of money stem from here. Graebers story is more elegant, with a single mechanism. It's all debt. The banking money multiplier predates money, and is the real way money came to be. I immediately thought of bitcoin. My current thinking is that bitcoin will be real money when people start borrowing it, not when they start buying stuff with it. Or else, maybe bitcoin is not really significant since it's just a way of denominating money. Anarchists will be interested for the anthropology, the history of debt rebellions and such. Not a lot of anarchists out there, so I assume modern writing from anarchist perspectives is generally interesting to them.

pesmhey 9y ago
To your comment on borrowing bitcoin, a few exchanges are selling futures, which you can short. This started relatively recently - December.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  Well there you go. Does that count as debt though? Money and bitcoin would be exchanged simultaneously so no one ever owes anyone anything. I guess futures are an "obligation"...
  - pesmhey 9y ago
    Shorting actually puts you in debt - you borrow the shares and immediately sell them. So yeah, from this point-of-view, it looks like you're assertion is correct.