6 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
One 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 ago
  Sort 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 ago
    You haven't met a wide range of economists.
    - atq2119 5y ago
      There 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 ago
        Hunch: It is because academics need to prove their results. In order to do that, they generally need numbers.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      I 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 ago
        You might like the writings of Yanis Varoufakis.
        jessaustin 5y ago
        Yes, 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 ago
  I’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 ago
    Moreover, the premise violates one of my first principles.
- Nimitz14 5y ago
  That'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 ago
    It 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 ago
      So 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 ago
        My 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 ago
        I 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 ago
  I 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.

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago

One 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 ago
Sort 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 ago
  You haven't met a wide range of economists.
  - atq2119 5y ago
    There 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 ago
      Hunch: It is because academics need to prove their results. In order to do that, they generally need numbers.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    I 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 ago
      You might like the writings of Yanis Varoufakis.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Yes, 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 ago
I’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 ago
  Moreover, the premise violates one of my first principles.
Nimitz14 5y ago
That'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 ago
  It 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 ago
    So 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 ago
      My 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 ago
      I 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 ago
I 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.