6 ms·

To name just one of Graeber's essential lies: he makes the claim that Federal Reserve issuing American debt is privately controlled and weaves an extensive chap

To name just one of Graeber's essential lies: he makes the claim that Federal Reserve issuing American debt is privately controlled and weaves an extensive chapter based in fundamental ways on this misapprehension. This is a lie that's not "minor" nor "a matter of interpretation" nor unrelated to the "character of the book or arguments within": it's a fundamental misapprehension of the most important debt instrument in modern history (perhaps all history). In a book about debt in history. I don't really care too much for Graeber's self-important response. If the answer is, yes, Graeber's entitled to say what he wants because people celebrate and have conferences about him, and those who disagree are implied to be beneath him... well, the brazen self-importance is so astonishing that I can't rightly understand how one can agree with that degree of self-importance so directly presented, especially when it comes paired with no actual defense of his statements -- not even a link. Statements of the form "I'm right because I'm important, and that's all I need to say" are not usually tolerated from almost anyone as a substitute for basic, bare truths. That they are accepted here is not only a comment on the character of Graeber but on the character of his followers.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> To name just one of Graeber's essential lies: he makes the claim that Federal Reserve issuing American debt is privately controlled From a short piece of writing from the St. Louis Fed itself, linked to in another comment below: >The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Now, we could quote the next few lines too, for a bit more context: > So is the Fed private or public? The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Clearly, it's a rather unique institution that makes arguments that it is privately controlled or not rather harder to resolve. But that also means that this is not "an essential lie" by Graeber. He has elided some of the complexity in favor of what he sees as a more important truth, without saying something that it categorically false.
- cynicalkane 5y ago
  American debt is issued entirely by Congress and the Treasury, and its monetization controlled by the Fed's Board of Governors, which is appointed by the government and independently operated. There's no means of control over these two things outside the U.S. government. There's also the FOMC, but this is relatively unessential such that it's unlikely to be related to whatever "essential truth" Graeber has in mind. In particular, they don't set monetary policy but do whatever the Board of Governors orders in that regard.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I wasn't making an argument about the behavior of the Fed. You stated that Graeber had told "an essential lie" in claiming that the Fed was privately controlled. I quoted from the St. Louis Fed. their own text which (a) confirms that it is not part of the government (b) it's complicated. I don't really give a damn about the argument on whether the Fed is or is not part of the government; what I care about is people claiming that someone is lying when they are not.
    - cynicalkane 5y ago
      The point is issuance of American debt, and the Fed's role in it, is not privately controlled, neither in fact or in essence. Saying otherwise is an obvious lie in both senses.
      - thoughtstheseus 5y ago
        Just a financial plumbing nitpick. The TREASURY issues debt, not the Federal Reserve. Everyone agrees the Treasury is part of the federal government.
  - zzbzq 5y ago
    This dispute might originate deeper into Graeber's other work on debt in "Debt: The first 5000 years." In common parlance, Treasury Bonds are the debt. But, in Graeber's theory of debt, the currency itself is also debt.
jmcmichael 5y ago
> To name just one of Graeber's essential lies: he makes the claim that Federal Reserve issuing American debt is privately controlled and weaves an extensive chapter based in fundamental ways on this misapprehension. No, he does not. This is the only passage I can find where Graeber comes close to what you claim he wrote: “The Federal Reserve—despite the name—is technically not part of the government at all, but a peculiar sort of public-private hybrid, a consortium of privately owned banks whose chairman is appointed by the United States president, with Congressional approval, but which otherwise operates without public oversight.” As has been pointed out to you at least twice in the other comments, this is how the Federal Reserve describes itself. You’ve misremembered Graeber (here I will be charitable to you and not claim that you’ve lied) as saying the Fed is “privately controlled”, and your repeated assertions, as you’re backed into a corner in other threads, depends on this precise misremembering of what he actually wrote. And furthermore, he does not “weave an entire chapter based in fundamental ways on this misapprehension”. The chapter is primarily about the role of the US military, its global domination, and ability to wage war in support of its economic interests, in the proliferation of the USD and its economic power. The paragraphs about the Fed and it’s precise association with the government is basically a sidebar. > Statements of the form "I'm right because I'm important, and that's all I need to say" are not usually tolerated from almost anyone as a substitute for basic, bare truths. That they are accepted here is not only a comment on the character of Graeber but on the character of his followers. I thought you were more acquainted with the long running dispute between Graeber, Delong, and a host of neoliberal/libertarian/Austrian economists. Apparently, you do not realize that the passage I quoted was from the final response that Graeber offered in their long running dispute, a dispute that included answers, in detail, of DeLong’s specious claims. “I’m right because I am important” was not Graeber’s argument, his argument was along the lines of “if “Debt” was so riddled with obvious and crippling flaws, why as it been so influential in economics and anthropology? Why has it led to conferences and it’s own influential body of work that cites it? Why did it lead to a professorship at the London School of Economics? Collaborations with prominent economists?” Given your attack on Graeber is riddled with errors, depends upon a misremembered quote, demonstrates ignorance of the content of his own long-running defense of his book, how are we now to judge your character as you have seen fit to judge me and his other supporters?
- 5y ago
justin66 5y ago
I haven't read Debt yet but one can look at the index and jump right to p365 (Federal Reserve Bank - loans to government by, 365-366). It characterizes the Federal Reserve as "a peculiar sort of public-private hybrid" (this is certainly true, and it's a deliberate design feature) and gives an accurate but highly abbreviated description of fractional reserve banking and the Fed's purchase of government bonds. Nothing on this page tells me that he doesn't understand the system or is attempting to deceive. I don't understand where your objection is coming from. Have you branded Graeber the great deceiver because of a line like "while technically, the Fed cannot lend money directly to the government by buying Treasury Bonds, everyone knows that doing so indirectly is one of its primary reasons for being"? That statement is a lot less controversial than you perhaps believe it is. Everything on this page seems pretty innocuous, and while I'm sure the whole book is a lot more daring... this doesn't jive with your criticism at all.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> To name just one of Graeber's essential lies: he makes the claim that Federal Reserve issuing American debt is privately controlled From a short piece of writing from the St. Louis Fed itself, linked to in another comment below: >The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Now, we could quote the next few lines too, for a bit more context: > So is the Fed private or public? The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Clearly, it's a rather unique institution that makes arguments that it is privately controlled or not rather harder to resolve. But that also means that this is not "an essential lie" by Graeber. He has elided some of the complexity in favor of what he sees as a more important truth, without saying something that it categorically false.

cynicalkane 5y ago
American debt is issued entirely by Congress and the Treasury, and its monetization controlled by the Fed's Board of Governors, which is appointed by the government and independently operated. There's no means of control over these two things outside the U.S. government. There's also the FOMC, but this is relatively unessential such that it's unlikely to be related to whatever "essential truth" Graeber has in mind. In particular, they don't set monetary policy but do whatever the Board of Governors orders in that regard.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I wasn't making an argument about the behavior of the Fed. You stated that Graeber had told "an essential lie" in claiming that the Fed was privately controlled. I quoted from the St. Louis Fed. their own text which (a) confirms that it is not part of the government (b) it's complicated. I don't really give a damn about the argument on whether the Fed is or is not part of the government; what I care about is people claiming that someone is lying when they are not.
  - cynicalkane 5y ago
    The point is issuance of American debt, and the Fed's role in it, is not privately controlled, neither in fact or in essence. Saying otherwise is an obvious lie in both senses.
    - thoughtstheseus 5y ago
      Just a financial plumbing nitpick. The TREASURY issues debt, not the Federal Reserve. Everyone agrees the Treasury is part of the federal government.
- zzbzq 5y ago
  This dispute might originate deeper into Graeber's other work on debt in "Debt: The first 5000 years." In common parlance, Treasury Bonds are the debt. But, in Graeber's theory of debt, the currency itself is also debt.

jmcmichael 5y ago

> To name just one of Graeber's essential lies: he makes the claim that Federal Reserve issuing American debt is privately controlled and weaves an extensive chapter based in fundamental ways on this misapprehension. No, he does not. This is the only passage I can find where Graeber comes close to what you claim he wrote: “The Federal Reserve—despite the name—is technically not part of the government at all, but a peculiar sort of public-private hybrid, a consortium of privately owned banks whose chairman is appointed by the United States president, with Congressional approval, but which otherwise operates without public oversight.” As has been pointed out to you at least twice in the other comments, this is how the Federal Reserve describes itself. You’ve misremembered Graeber (here I will be charitable to you and not claim that you’ve lied) as saying the Fed is “privately controlled”, and your repeated assertions, as you’re backed into a corner in other threads, depends on this precise misremembering of what he actually wrote. And furthermore, he does not “weave an entire chapter based in fundamental ways on this misapprehension”. The chapter is primarily about the role of the US military, its global domination, and ability to wage war in support of its economic interests, in the proliferation of the USD and its economic power. The paragraphs about the Fed and it’s precise association with the government is basically a sidebar. > Statements of the form "I'm right because I'm important, and that's all I need to say" are not usually tolerated from almost anyone as a substitute for basic, bare truths. That they are accepted here is not only a comment on the character of Graeber but on the character of his followers. I thought you were more acquainted with the long running dispute between Graeber, Delong, and a host of neoliberal/libertarian/Austrian economists. Apparently, you do not realize that the passage I quoted was from the final response that Graeber offered in their long running dispute, a dispute that included answers, in detail, of DeLong’s specious claims. “I’m right because I am important” was not Graeber’s argument, his argument was along the lines of “if “Debt” was so riddled with obvious and crippling flaws, why as it been so influential in economics and anthropology? Why has it led to conferences and it’s own influential body of work that cites it? Why did it lead to a professorship at the London School of Economics? Collaborations with prominent economists?” Given your attack on Graeber is riddled with errors, depends upon a misremembered quote, demonstrates ignorance of the content of his own long-running defense of his book, how are we now to judge your character as you have seen fit to judge me and his other supporters?

5y ago

justin66 5y ago

I haven't read Debt yet but one can look at the index and jump right to p365 (Federal Reserve Bank - loans to government by, 365-366). It characterizes the Federal Reserve as "a peculiar sort of public-private hybrid" (this is certainly true, and it's a deliberate design feature) and gives an accurate but highly abbreviated description of fractional reserve banking and the Fed's purchase of government bonds. Nothing on this page tells me that he doesn't understand the system or is attempting to deceive. I don't understand where your objection is coming from. Have you branded Graeber the great deceiver because of a line like "while technically, the Fed cannot lend money directly to the government by buying Treasury Bonds, everyone knows that doing so indirectly is one of its primary reasons for being"? That statement is a lot less controversial than you perhaps believe it is. Everything on this page seems pretty innocuous, and while I'm sure the whole book is a lot more daring... this doesn't jive with your criticism at all.