Problem for what? Graeber discusses and speculates about different flavours of bullshit, that explicitly are not intended to represent different versions of th

Problem for what? Graeber discusses and speculates about different flavours of bullshit, that explicitly are not intended to represent different versions of the same thing. For definition/measurement, he takes an anthropologist's approach: let people define it themselves. Both you and this article are imposing another definition of bullshit. That's fine, but it just isn't the subject of the book. He purposely chose a playful dissenting term like bullshit. He didn't say "productivity," because he wasn't writing a book on economics. He didn't say "alienation" because it wasn't a book about psychology. He does talk about those things, but they don't define it. The reason the book is compelling is precisely because it isn't an economics or psychology book. Economics is pretty bad at measuring economic output of accounting, advertising, HR and most of the jobs that have a high rate of "my job is bullshit" takes associated with them. That means that we don't have empirical knowledge to discuss and the "argument" keeps devolving into the same theoretical (now ideological) one that Marx and Ricardo had 200 years ago... just like this article does. No one would be making these comments if the subject was "am I a good person?"