7 ms·

buy and read Debt: the first 5000 years. It is an eye opening perspective on world history. His Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology is also one I always wi

buy and read Debt: the first 5000 years. It is an eye opening perspective on world history. His Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology is also one I always wished to read a follow up on.

programmarchy 6y ago
Great book. It was the exit ramp from the libertarian history of money for me.
noneeeed 6y ago
I should probably give that another go when I have more time. I got part way in and just stopped after a while as it just seemed to be taking forever to get anywhere. It's a bit like Better Angels of Our Nature, which I got about 1/3rd of the way through before getting bored of the same point being demonstrated over and over. There's something to be said for making serious time for reading serious books, rather than reading them piecemeal over too long a time as I did back then.
- lmohseni 6y ago
  In my opionion, it seemed to really "pick up" around chapter 6, "games with sex and death" when it really started to get into anthropological nuts and bolts.
  - noneeeed 6y ago
    That's good to know, thanks.
TheTrotters 6y ago
But also be sure to read critiques of Debt written by economists. Here’s one by Noah Smith: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-first-5000-years.html?m=1 http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-...
- tome 6y ago
  Thanks for linking that. It does a good job of drawing out some of the feelings I had when I read Debt. On the one hand I'm very glad I read the book. I found it very enlightening in terms of various aspects of history and anthropology, as well as enlightening about various leftist ideas. On the other hand I can't say I came away feeling like I had read a "correct analysis" or that I really understood any better how anything worked. (I'm quite surprised to see so much praise for it on HN actually and such little challenge, the sad news about the passing of its author notwithstanding.) [EDIT: There are also some good counterpoints to Noah Smith's critique in the comments, for example https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-first-5000-years.html?showComment=1415178947855&m=1#c8998974327663826104 https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt...]
- specialist 6y ago
  From that reply: "While markets are one thing, capitalism is quite another, though, as it's marked by the power imbalances of wage labor, something not found in all previous incidences of commerce..." Upvote for dissembling markets from capitalism. But I really wish the peanut gallery would also separate corporatism from capitalism. There's nothing about capitalism (dogma, theory, practice) which prohibits the surplus (profit) from being shared with labor.
  - aabhay 6y ago
    That’s like saying there’s nothing inherently about dictatorships that makes them oppressive. While yes you can invent a hypothetical situation where the capitalists give all their money to workers, the overwhelming empirical history is that capitalists don’t share their profit with laborers.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      It's just that living conditions and average wealth has skyrocketed over the past couple hundred years. Deirdre McCloskey refers to it as the Great Enrichment: > The rise in the liberal nations has been a stunning 3,000 percent at the least—or if one allows properly for improvements in quality, such as better medicine and better housing (and for that matter, better economics), more like 10,000 percent. A factor of 100. Goodness. https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/great-enrichment https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/great-enrichment
mFixman 6y ago
I can't be the only one who thought that book was grasping at straws for validation most of the time. The book makes some very strong theories without much explanation, and then finds random tidbids of evidence to support them while ignoring the rest of the world. To me it felt closer to Guns, Germs and Steel than to serious history-of-the-world type of books. Maybe if the author's theory was less radical it would have worked, but I was having a hard time believing that what he wrote was anywhere near true.
- lazzlazzlazz 6y ago
  Honestly, I've been amazed by the outpouring of positive comments — but I think that's to be expected in the aftermath of the man's death, which is sad to hear. I found `Debt` to be awful and increasingly false the more I learn about the history and purpose of debt through my additional reading and professional experience. It's definitely a "pop political economics" book, and feels like it.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Can you elaborate some of your objections?

buy and read Debt: the first 5000 years. It is an eye opening perspective on world history. His Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology is also one I always wished to read a follow up on.

programmarchy 6y ago

Great book. It was the exit ramp from the libertarian history of money for me.

noneeeed 6y ago

I should probably give that another go when I have more time. I got part way in and just stopped after a while as it just seemed to be taking forever to get anywhere. It's a bit like Better Angels of Our Nature, which I got about 1/3rd of the way through before getting bored of the same point being demonstrated over and over. There's something to be said for making serious time for reading serious books, rather than reading them piecemeal over too long a time as I did back then.

lmohseni 6y ago
In my opionion, it seemed to really "pick up" around chapter 6, "games with sex and death" when it really started to get into anthropological nuts and bolts.
- noneeeed 6y ago
  That's good to know, thanks.

TheTrotters 6y ago

But also be sure to read critiques of Debt written by economists. Here’s one by Noah Smith: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-first-5000-years.html?m=1 http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-...

tome 6y ago
Thanks for linking that. It does a good job of drawing out some of the feelings I had when I read Debt. On the one hand I'm very glad I read the book. I found it very enlightening in terms of various aspects of history and anthropology, as well as enlightening about various leftist ideas. On the other hand I can't say I came away feeling like I had read a "correct analysis" or that I really understood any better how anything worked. (I'm quite surprised to see so much praise for it on HN actually and such little challenge, the sad news about the passing of its author notwithstanding.) [EDIT: There are also some good counterpoints to Noah Smith's critique in the comments, for example https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-first-5000-years.html?showComment=1415178947855&m=1#c8998974327663826104 https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt...]
specialist 6y ago
From that reply: "While markets are one thing, capitalism is quite another, though, as it's marked by the power imbalances of wage labor, something not found in all previous incidences of commerce..." Upvote for dissembling markets from capitalism. But I really wish the peanut gallery would also separate corporatism from capitalism. There's nothing about capitalism (dogma, theory, practice) which prohibits the surplus (profit) from being shared with labor.
- aabhay 6y ago
  That’s like saying there’s nothing inherently about dictatorships that makes them oppressive. While yes you can invent a hypothetical situation where the capitalists give all their money to workers, the overwhelming empirical history is that capitalists don’t share their profit with laborers.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    It's just that living conditions and average wealth has skyrocketed over the past couple hundred years. Deirdre McCloskey refers to it as the Great Enrichment: > The rise in the liberal nations has been a stunning 3,000 percent at the least—or if one allows properly for improvements in quality, such as better medicine and better housing (and for that matter, better economics), more like 10,000 percent. A factor of 100. Goodness. https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/great-enrichment https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/great-enrichment

mFixman 6y ago

I can't be the only one who thought that book was grasping at straws for validation most of the time. The book makes some very strong theories without much explanation, and then finds random tidbids of evidence to support them while ignoring the rest of the world. To me it felt closer to Guns, Germs and Steel than to serious history-of-the-world type of books. Maybe if the author's theory was less radical it would have worked, but I was having a hard time believing that what he wrote was anywhere near true.

lazzlazzlazz 6y ago
Honestly, I've been amazed by the outpouring of positive comments — but I think that's to be expected in the aftermath of the man's death, which is sad to hear. I found `Debt` to be awful and increasingly false the more I learn about the history and purpose of debt through my additional reading and professional experience. It's definitely a "pop political economics" book, and feels like it.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Can you elaborate some of your objections?