My point was not that anthropologies don't have good data, rather I was referring to some of the specific examples in the book for witch we don't have. > Beyon

My point was not that anthropologies don't have good data, rather I was referring to some of the specific examples in the book for witch we don't have. > Beyond that, I don't see how the Carl Menger quote you cited is proof that economists have a robust understanding of gift economies - and indeed it really doesn't. Its not the primary study of economists and not what they are primarily interested in and there is nothing wrong with that. Its also just one example, you can find other references to such things from Smith on. However, Graeber consistent accusation is that economists had no understanding of its existence and therefore they are fundamentally wrong everything as the whole discipline is built on false foundation. In fact, I would argue Graeber critic is basically built on a moral judgment. He seems to be unable to accept that even while knowing of these things, people would not consider it very relevant. Because for him it lays the foundation for everything about how the world today SHOULD work. > Graeber is correct that mainstream economics pretty much only cares about market economies This is pretty clearly wrong. You can go back to even Adam Smith, if you look at his 2 relevant books, one is pretty clearly not about market economics. Economists have pretty much always been interested in institutions as well. In fact, when the discipline started 'Political Economy' was the term and that included a mix of economics and political science. And even after those were split, Political Economy, Economics&Law, Institutional Economics and other were all still within the discipline. Now of course if you simple define 'mainstream' as excluding all of that is just an incredibly narrow definition and view of economics. But of course if we accept that the definition of discipline as an explicit critic then I not sure what the counter argument is. Its basically just saying "I don't like what these people do because I think markets are evil, therefore if you study them you are evil. > and he is correct that modern economics is a highly ideological discipline where schools that did not align with imperialism I disagree that its highly ideological. This is of course hard to measure. However if we just look at political divide you will see that inside of economics you have people from all over the political spectrum while some other social disciplines are far more left, some almost exclusively so. Honestly common from people like Graeber, the accusation of other disciplines being ideological is highly unconvincing. I'm not sure what the second part of sentence means? Are you trying to say people who were against imperialism got removed from economics? Because that would be very wrong. > Yes, though I can tell you I never heard of Carl Menger by name until I already had a pretty solid understanding of marginal utility theory. Its pretty much universally accepted that there were 3 economists who lead the marginal revolution in economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#Marginal_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#Marginal_Revo... - William Stanley Jevons - Carl Menger - Marie-Esprit-Léon Walras They are mentioned in any history of economic thought class. I understand that in general economics education doesn't put much interest in history of economic thought and so I do not fault people for not knowing. It is only surprising in one who implies he is an expert in history of economic thought and seeks to fundamentally critic it. > Most importantly, is that a solid argument against the core thesis of the book? No. And yes, economics as a discipline is incredibly politically charged and has very poor predictive ability, assumes way too much, and is largely unaware of its issues. Anthropology is less politically charged because most people are not interested in it and they don't try to make any predictions. Nor are they asked to make accurate predictions years in advanced in a world of 8 billion people. I would argue the attack against economics as a social science is incredibly unfair, no social science in the complex real world can accurately predict, even if you assume perfect models, you wouldn't have the access to the needed data in real time. There is a large difference between economics as a discipline and the reality that social scientists (most often economist) have been used by states and are forced to come up with recommendation. Jet somehow in economics such mistakes are seen as a reflection of economics as discipline itself. Saying things like economist as displine failed to predict 2008 is about as useful as saying sociologist failed to predict the opcode epidemic. You can argue that Political Scientists failed to predict the Arab Spring. And we can play these games for all disciplines. Now you can likely go back and find individuals working in these discipline pointing at warning signs but that's not the same thing. You seem to follow the popular outside economics view of economics where they as dispine are all totally arrogant and fundamentally un-reflective, rather then what most actual economists actually write and believe in. I really just pointed at one example of a problem in the book. The book also ignores a whole bunch of very important questions that are very relevant in order to tell a very tight narrative about the things he wants to talk about. Most of all his conclusion about how these 'facts' should inform the world today.