3 ms·
> It's a pleasure to read an article by a writer who understands of the history economic thought He basically wrote two paragraphs with the most oversimplified
by nickik 8y ago
> It's a pleasure to read an article by a writer who understands of the history economic thought
He basically wrote two paragraphs with the most oversimplified and honestly often wrong intellectual history of economics.
> First, because I like his intellectual shit-stirring.
You mean you like it if somebody writes a book criticizing another profession even while he clearly has not studied either modern economics or even the history of intellectual thought in economics. I wish more people would do that, sound like a healthy thing for science.
> Second, because I think he's right about the origin of money. Money evolved from debt. Debt did not evolve from money, as liberal 17/18th century thinkers assumed.
That was one of the nice tricks he pulled. If he actually bothered to read the history of economic thought and not the 2min cliff notes he would have found tons of interesting and complex thought about money and its origins.
He later claims that anthropologists had studied gift giving and debt economy then were the once that studied these things, while economist had done so 50 years earlier and were far more nuanced and with greater integration with economics then the the later anthropologists.
However Graeber is so anti-economics that he literally refused to read that literature to such extend he made the incredible embracing mistake and mis-characterizations that I could not take him seriously.
He didn't know the primary economist who wrote about origins of money and when writing about him he claimed 'he only added math to Smith argument'. That is particularly embracing because Carl Menger was known for not using a lot of math. So where did this notion of 'adding math come from'. Well there is another Carl Menger (the son) who was a mathematician.
So quite simply Graeber is so certain that he is correct and all economist are stupid that he never read the most influential economist on the very topic he claims to criticize economist about.
Graeber himself has admitted that money can arrive both from sustained interaction and trade, as well as from debt systems. So his whole me against the economist argument never even made sense, most economist didn't disagree with his main point.
What he did was trying to make this simple point and the argument that debt is not always good (Britain in Madagascar and so on) and then he hoped people would buy the rest wholesale.
- crdoconnor 8y ago>You mean you like it if somebody writes a book criticizing another profession even while he clearly has not studied either modern economics or even the history of intellectual thought in economics. I wish more people would do that, sound like a healthy thing for science. You do realize that it's a history book and is not actually about economics at all? I didn't read much in that book that even discusses modern economic thought. The closest he gets is debunking the story about money arising because of a coincidence of wants. That's hardly a lynchpin of modern economic thought though - it's a story told to 19 year olds in econ 101. A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose.
- nickik 8y ago> You do realize that it's a history book and is not actually about economics at all? The book about money and debt guess what discipline has studied this for 500 years. But of course, when he writes a book about money and debt its not economics. Of course it has other components as well but its still a large part of the substantial argument of the book, even if it doesn't cover as many pages as all his case studies. It is also very specifically target at economist and telling everybody how stupid they are, there are ton's of references to the failures of economics and historical economists. He almost delights in it. > The closest he gets is debunking the story about money arising because of a coincidence of wants. Yes and is it not funny that he has never actually read the book by the economist who most popularized this. He literally doesn't know about it and has not read or studied any of the literature. So he is 'debunking' something that he has not actually informed himself about. He literally didn't read the book by Carl Menger that made this argument. How can you take somebody like that seriously? > A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose. There are tons of left wing and even communist economist and thinkers that I respect. However he is basically a charlatan who does not even have the decency to inform himself about what he is criticizing and yet writes with such a superior tone because he already knows that he is correct.
- edanm 8y ago> A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose. I mean, sure, you can can your comment with this. But you're replying to someone who actually gave very specific criticisms of his work. You might not agree with them, but why bring politics into this?