6 ms·
The subject’s book “Debt: The First 5,000 Years” was so poorly researched and argued, it’s one of the few books I’ve returned to Amazon in the past two decades.
by mcenedella 5y ago
The subject’s book “Debt: The First 5,000 Years” was so poorly researched and argued, it’s one of the few books I’ve returned to Amazon in the past two decades. (“A History of Interest Rates” by Homer & Sylla, remains the definitive history of debt among humankind. Originally written in 1963, I’d been hoping to find a modern update to the subject matter.)
Similar to this article - lots of claims of greatness, but never actually gets around to using facts to build the case.
“All hat and no cattle” as they might say.
- handrous 5y agoI didn't evaluate its sources, but thought the writing in Debt was excellent. The typical pattern throughout was for Graeber to introduce an idea in a paragraph, for me to think of several "what about..." and "hm, I dunno"s for it, and for Graeber to spend the next few paragraphs addressing all of those, directly.
- __MatrixMan__ 5y agoOne thing I took away from it that has been true every time I've had occasion to check: When economists tell the "first there was barter, and then there was money" story, they almost never care to connect the claim to evidence. It's like they're laying down premises for an argument rather than making claims about actual humans.
- jessaustin 5y agoSort of how economists are always urging more neoliberalism and less of any alternative (socialism, syndicalism, Georgism, whatever): they're talking their own book. If they don't examine the nature of money (for example, the control that capitalists exert over Fed policy etc.) too closely they can pretend that their simplistic models still have some explanatory value.
- xapata 5y agoYou haven't met a wide range of economists.
- atq2119 5y agoThere is indeed a bunch of variety among academics in economics, but a very heavy filter biases which kinds of economic opinions make it into the broader public sphere. This has a lot to do with how think tanks are, on average, politically biased due to their funding sources, and so one could argue that it's not academics' fault. Still, I often feel that academics in economics too easily abdicate their responsibility for how the subject impact society.
- afarrell 5y agoHunch: It is because academics need to prove their results. In order to do that, they generally need numbers.
- jessaustin 5y agoI haven't seen a "wide range of economists" on TV! Or testifying before Congress! Or arranging coups in Chile! At university, I met (and roomed with) lots of economists, all of whom were solidly in the neoliberal camp. As perceptive readers might have realized, since then I've read and listened to a broader range of economic expertise. My favorite now is Richard Wolff.
- xapata 5y agoYou might like the writings of Yanis Varoufakis.
- jessaustin 5y agoYes, I do. He has interesting things to say about the role of Germany in EU, much as e.g. Michael Hudson has interesting things to say about the role of USA globally.
- skybrian 5y agoI’ve read that the Austrian school believed you can figure out economics from first principles, but I don’t think that’s true generally.
- xapata 5y agoMoreover, the premise violates one of my first principles.
- Nimitz14 5y agoThat's so obvious it doesn't require evidence. Of course there was bartering before there was money, you don't need to money to barter, you need to invent money to use money.
- afarrell 5y agoIt is obvious that barter was a possibility. It is not obvious that most economic interaction worked through barter. How often do your interactions with your friends and family involve barter? Mine are more nuanced exchanges like - "I generally do the dishes and trust that you are keeping on top of sorting our mail" - "I've got this round of beers. You'll probably get the next one but nobody's counting" - "Sure, I'll help you move flats"
- Nimitz14 5y agoSo because you don't barter with your family and friends - while living a top 0.00001% lifestyle compared to most people in history - you conclude bartering wasn't really a big thing in the past and people just gave things away for free most of the time? I assume no, but I'm not understanding what are you actually arguing for then?
- afarrell 5y agoMy assumption is that your lifestyle is similarly detached from antiquity as mine. My only firm conclusion is that it is non-obvious, either of us would need more evidence, and that it was worth David Graeber's time to research.
- achenet 5y agoI think you misunderstood his point- in a system without money, you can directly barter (ie I give you an apple for your your orange), or adopt a ‘credit’ based system (ie I give you an apple today, and when I need a favor I’ll ask you for one - like the Godfather, for example). What the book ‘Debt’ discusses is that credit based systems were the norm, not bartering. In fact, iirc even bats have been shown to keep track of who shares food with them, and to share excess food with a less lucky partner, provided that partner continues to reciprocate.
- PaulAJ 5y agoI checked that one out myself. Modern economics textbooks don't do that. That entire section seemed to be Graeber saying "Economists have been promoting a myth for the last two centuries, but here I graciously point out their error so that they may be corrected and learn the truth." It never seems to occur to him that he might be tilting at a straw man. I'm quite happy to agree that Smith got it wrong, but the modern examples Graeber cites don't support his claims. If you read them more carefully, what they are saying is "IF we were to live in a barter world then it would be very inefficient, hence money". They don't say that Barter World ever existed; its just a thought experiment.
- littlestymaar 5y ago> Most economists would probably relate a stylized “history of money” something like the following: As specialization caused problems in coordinating trade, societies naturally settled upon certain commodities, usually metals, as media of exchange. The Transition From Barter to Fiat Money, Saint Louis Fed WORKING PAPER SERIES, 1994: https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/1994/94-004.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/1994/94-004.pdf This idea is widely accepted to be wrong today, but as you can see it wasn't the case not so long ago.
- cycomanic 5y agoI know this is a public forum and not a scientific discourse, but considering that you criticising the book for essentially lack of evidence (facts), could you give some some evidence/examples for this?
- q1w2 5y agoI think the biggest set of fallacious claims made are made on the "Clovis Point" finds. The author makes broad sweeping statements based on these small finds that are not really supported by the evidence, nor do any of the experts in the field agree. Additionally, the author goes to great lengths to make the claim that the earliest societies were egalitarian "commune" societies of hunter gatherers, by cherry picking very specific finds, and completely ignoring any counter-examples. He also draws broad conclusions on very weak evidence. For example, he looks at the ruins of certain ancient sites only partially excavated, notes that there's no evidence of a "central large building" and draws the conclusion that these societies had no central gov't or singular leadership. These are wildly fallacious arguments. It's the sort of thing we see when someone who is very politically active does direct historical research. It's too easy to biased your research if you're specifically looking for evidence to support your modern politics.
- JackFr 5y agoI had Dick Sylla as a professor for economic history. Wonderful lecturer with encyclopedic knowledge of the history of finance. Though A History of Interest Rates is thorough, comprehensive and well documented, I must say the writing is pretty dry.
- streamofdigits 5y agoEquating the natural history of "interest rates" with that of debt / credit relations gives a hint of why you might not have liked the Debt book. Anecdotally, modern day bankers and economists get a real shock when he discusses the long historical relation of debt with slavery. Their further response to the book is generally tainted by that unease. The rarefied world of high finance and macroeconomics (while well endowed with "research" and sophistry) has generally avoided to take responsibility for both human and physical (environmental) costs of the financial / economic systems they rationalize. That is a societal debt that is now becoming overdue with unknown consequences.
- datavirtue 5y agoHence our deeply rooted tradition of bankruptcy and laws prohibiting debtors' prison.
- streamofdigits 5y agoThis tradition an almost uniquely US phenomenon. "Around the world, people are less forgiving about debt forgiveness than they are in the United States" [0] Now consider the implications of a globalized economy where consumption in rich countries is underwritten by debt peonage. "The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that $51.2 billion is made annually in the exploitation of workers through debt bondage".[1] [0] https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/28_1/01_TXT.htm https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage#South_Asia_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage#South_Asia_2