17 ms·

> Graeber is a poor economist Is exactly my point which is why said that Debt is a terrible book to understand money in the real world. > deserves props for d

by unmole 5y ago

> Graeber is a poor economist Is exactly my point which is why said that Debt is a terrible book to understand money in the real world. > deserves props for debunking the myth of barter coming before credit Do you think Graber came up with this? Or that this wasn't the mainstream view amongst economists? Allyn Young wrote matter-of-factly about it for a popular science book in 1924[0]. And I don't mean to say he was the first one to realise this, I'm saying this was a common view. And Young wasn't some avant-garde heterodox radical. He was the president of American Economic Association. It doesn't get more mainstream than that! And this what I mean by misrepresentation of the history and ideas of mainstream economics. And Graber doesn't stop there. He pretends like somehow all of economics is hinged upon this Myth of Barter. Adam Smith is not the supreme arbiter and law-giver of economics. FWIW, Graber's critism of Adam Smith in this instance is justified. But as is typical of Graber, he doesn't stop there. He goes on to say thet Adam Smith's famous "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest" thesis is wrong because shopkeepers of the time mostly sold goods on credit and thus the customers were in fact depending on their benevolence. If credit was benevolence, that would make banks the most benevolent entities on the planet. 0: https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/money/readings/Allyn%20Young.pdf https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/money/readings/Allyn%2...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SailingSperm 5y ago
>Adam Smith's famous "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest" thesis is wrong because shopkeepers of the time mostly sold goods on credit and thus the customers were in fact depending on their benevolence. It's not necessarily wrong though. Giving credit can still be a self-interest motivated action, in fact it would most often only be that - generating a higher reward to the risk taken by giving it - as banks try to manage. So yes, banks aren't run by benevolence, and they aren't the most benevolent entities on the planet (far from it) - they're just economically rational actors, that are benefited by offering credit.
- unmole 5y ago
  Err? I'm not saying Adam Smith is wrong. I'm saying Graber's characterisation of Smith's argument is wrong. Or did I misunderstand your comment?
  - SailingSperm 5y ago
    Apologies! I misread your comment - which I'm not sure how, upon re-reading and finding it pretty clear.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kipchak 5y ago
I’m about halfway through Debt and enjoying it so far, but that Adam Smith line, The Wizard of Oz being weirdly recognized as a Sliver/Gold standard allegory and the history of the creation of IBM were all odd enough to make wonder about the rest of the book.
- unmole 5y ago
  Which editon are you reading? I thought the garbled IBM/Apple story was removed from later editions. Anyways, it was just a failed attempt adding some colour. I wouldn't ascribe too much importance to it. I had forgotten about the Wizard of Oz bit! I don't recall if it was meant as an aside or it was meant to support a larger point about public opinion of bimetallism. The bulk of the middle section of the book is mostly just meh. The final chapter though is something to behold! It's comically bad. The book remains fairly popular in certain circles. If not for anything else, read it so you can politely refute the person who brings it up at a party.
  - kipchak 5y ago
    I think I have the 2014 version. I don't think the IBM story itself is too important, but it does make me a bit more skeptical about other things that I have little firsthand knowledge of. As a comparison I remember reading a local newspaper article about something I happened to be involved in and the details were a bit off, making me wonder about the other articles I had no prior knowledge of. The Wizard of Oz bit is mostly color, but he relates it to the difficulty state-money theorists have had in coming up with similar narratives, and also that the myth of barter has persisted for lack of a similar anthropological myth for money.
- mellavora 5y ago
  The Wizard of Oz was actually in fact a silver/gold allegory. https://economics.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/RockoffWizardofOz.pdf https://economics.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files... L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, however, is not only a child's tale but also a sophisticated commentary on the political and economic debates of the Populist Era.1 Previous interpretations have focused on the political and social aspects of the allegory. The most important of these is Littlefield ([1966] 1968), although his interpretation was adumbrated by Nye (1951), Gardner and Nye (1957), Sackett (I960), and Bewley ([1964] 1970). My purpose is to unlock the references in the Wizard of Oz to the monetary debates of the 1890s. When the story is viewed in this light, the real reason the Cowardly Lion fell asleep in the field of poppies, the identity of the Wizard of Oz, the significance of the strange number of hallways and rooms in the Emerald Palace, and the reason the Wicked Witch of the West was so happy to get one of Dorothy's shoes become clear. Thus interpreted, the Wizard of Oz becomes a powerful pedagogic device. Few students of money and banking or economic history will forget the battle between the advocates of free silver and the defenders of the gold standard when it is explained through the Wizard of Oz.
nafey 5y ago
No but we must recognise Graeber for bringing this idea into the mainstream
- unmole 5y ago
  > No but we must recognise Graeber for bringing this idea into the mainstream By misrepresenting what economists actually believe? How exactly did that improve the public discourse?
vintermann 5y ago
Graeber did not claim to be the first debunking the myth of barter. However, what does it even matter, when the zombie keeps walking to this day? The linked article repeats the myth of barter. And lest people think it's only right-ish economists that keep repeating it, Yanis Varoufakis did so too (in his book "Talking to my daughter about the economy"). And yeah sure, nothing "hinges" on the myth of barter. But it is a symptom, a glaring illustration that economists are really bad at arguing from how real people actually act, and cheerfully embrace just-so stories that support their preferred ideas - which is the linked article's whole game, too.
- unmole 5y ago
  > Graeber did not claim to be the first debunking the myth of barter. I didn't say Graber claimed that. I was refuting the common defence of the book and emphasising that it was already a mainstream view. > However, what does it even matter, when the zombie keeps walking to this day? > But it is a symptom, a glaring illustration that economists are really bad at arguing from how real people actually act How much does the historical origin of money matter to the understanding economics of today? Economists aren't particularly interested in the origin of money. Any references to barter are usually in fluffy lines like this article or as dumb thought experimens. The fact that some of them get it wrong is not indicative of anything. > cheerfully embrace just-so stories that support their preferred ideas Which is rife across the humanities and not exclusive to economics. Hell, Graber's entire book is full of just that. If you look at popular books or even school text books, they will cheerfully claim that seasons are caused by the change in distance between the earth and the sun. That doesn't mean people working on climate models don't know that's not the case. And Varoufakis is <insert polite term for crackpot>, not exactly representative of mainstream economics.
  - md_ 5y ago
    I think your criticism of Graeber is somewhat fair. And it's a fair point that incorrect popular/lay theories don't mean experts don't know how things actually work. That said, I do think Graeber is right to emphasize the role of culture and belief--anthropological ideas--as an antidote to overly quantitative/mechanistic models. I'm not an economist, but it does seem like behavioral economics was pretty revolutionary in advancing the idea that humans are not just rational utility maximizers, despite Keynes using the term "animal spirits" nearly 100 years ago. Again, speaking as a layperson, it's frankly a bit weird to me how distant economics, anthropology, and psychology seem to be from each other.
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
>Do you think Graber came up with this? I believe Graeber acknowledge that Marcel Mauss came up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay) long before him ("1925 essay by the French sociologist Marcel Mauss that is the foundation of social theories of reciprocity and gift exchange")
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pydry 5y ago
>Or that this wasn't the mainstream view amongst economists? The myth is certainly taught by mainstream economists, here is one example: http://www2.york.psu.edu/~dxl31/econ14/lecture18.html http://www2.york.psu.edu/~dxl31/econ14/lecture18.html >And Graber doesn't stop there. He pretends like somehow all of economics is hinged upon this Myth of Barter. I think he was specifically targeting neoclassical economists. The idea of Homo Economicus is essentially rooted in a number of myths that depict humans as spherical cows, Adam Smith's story of money emerging from barter being just one. >Adam Smith is not the supreme arbiter and law-giver of economics. Nope, he just has an unusual take because his analysis is more rooted in historical and anthropological study and, of course, he's kind of left wing. This angers people who try to gatekeep economic thought, limiting it to the likes of neoliberal (but still somehow mainstream) ideologues like Mankiw or Milton Friedman. I guarantee that when David Koch made an large donation to Florida State U economics department he didn't do it with the idea that they would teach more Graeber.
- unmole 5y ago
  > The myth is certainly taught by mainstream economists, Can you please state what you think the supposed myth actually is? I'm asking because people seem to have very different ideas about what it actually is as seen in this very thread. > I think he was specifically targeting neoclassical economists. Quoting Graber: > The answer seems to be that the Myth of Barter cannot go away, because it is central to the entire discourse of economics. Recall here what Smith was trying to do when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Above all, the book was an attempt to establish the newfound discipline of economics as a science. > Nope, he just has an unusual take because his analysis is more rooted in historical and anthropological study and, of course, he's kind of left wing. I'm sorry, Adam Smith is left wing?
  - pydry 5y ago
    The myth is that barter arose spontaneously throughout history and that currency arose as a more efficient means of mediating barter. >I'm sorry, Adam Smith is left wing? I was referring to Graeber. He was left wing and anticapitalist. Orthodox (neoclassical) economists like Mankiw tend to be very strongly pro-corporate due to way funding flows in the profession.
mbrudd 5y ago
You are of course welcome to your opinions about these things, but please be respectful enough to spell the late David Graeber's name correctly.
- unmole 5y ago
  I did not misspell Graeber's name as some deliberate slight.

by unmole 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

SailingSperm 5y ago

>Adam Smith's famous "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest" thesis is wrong because shopkeepers of the time mostly sold goods on credit and thus the customers were in fact depending on their benevolence. It's not necessarily wrong though. Giving credit can still be a self-interest motivated action, in fact it would most often only be that - generating a higher reward to the risk taken by giving it - as banks try to manage. So yes, banks aren't run by benevolence, and they aren't the most benevolent entities on the planet (far from it) - they're just economically rational actors, that are benefited by offering credit.

unmole 5y ago
Err? I'm not saying Adam Smith is wrong. I'm saying Graber's characterisation of Smith's argument is wrong. Or did I misunderstand your comment?
- SailingSperm 5y ago
  Apologies! I misread your comment - which I'm not sure how, upon re-reading and finding it pretty clear.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kipchak 5y ago

I’m about halfway through Debt and enjoying it so far, but that Adam Smith line, The Wizard of Oz being weirdly recognized as a Sliver/Gold standard allegory and the history of the creation of IBM were all odd enough to make wonder about the rest of the book.

unmole 5y ago
Which editon are you reading? I thought the garbled IBM/Apple story was removed from later editions. Anyways, it was just a failed attempt adding some colour. I wouldn't ascribe too much importance to it. I had forgotten about the Wizard of Oz bit! I don't recall if it was meant as an aside or it was meant to support a larger point about public opinion of bimetallism. The bulk of the middle section of the book is mostly just meh. The final chapter though is something to behold! It's comically bad. The book remains fairly popular in certain circles. If not for anything else, read it so you can politely refute the person who brings it up at a party.
- kipchak 5y ago
  I think I have the 2014 version. I don't think the IBM story itself is too important, but it does make me a bit more skeptical about other things that I have little firsthand knowledge of. As a comparison I remember reading a local newspaper article about something I happened to be involved in and the details were a bit off, making me wonder about the other articles I had no prior knowledge of. The Wizard of Oz bit is mostly color, but he relates it to the difficulty state-money theorists have had in coming up with similar narratives, and also that the myth of barter has persisted for lack of a similar anthropological myth for money.
mellavora 5y ago
The Wizard of Oz was actually in fact a silver/gold allegory. https://economics.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/RockoffWizardofOz.pdf https://economics.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files... L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, however, is not only a child's tale but also a sophisticated commentary on the political and economic debates of the Populist Era.1 Previous interpretations have focused on the political and social aspects of the allegory. The most important of these is Littlefield ([1966] 1968), although his interpretation was adumbrated by Nye (1951), Gardner and Nye (1957), Sackett (I960), and Bewley ([1964] 1970). My purpose is to unlock the references in the Wizard of Oz to the monetary debates of the 1890s. When the story is viewed in this light, the real reason the Cowardly Lion fell asleep in the field of poppies, the identity of the Wizard of Oz, the significance of the strange number of hallways and rooms in the Emerald Palace, and the reason the Wicked Witch of the West was so happy to get one of Dorothy's shoes become clear. Thus interpreted, the Wizard of Oz becomes a powerful pedagogic device. Few students of money and banking or economic history will forget the battle between the advocates of free silver and the defenders of the gold standard when it is explained through the Wizard of Oz.

nafey 5y ago

No but we must recognise Graeber for bringing this idea into the mainstream

unmole 5y ago
> No but we must recognise Graeber for bringing this idea into the mainstream By misrepresenting what economists actually believe? How exactly did that improve the public discourse?

vintermann 5y ago

Graeber did not claim to be the first debunking the myth of barter. However, what does it even matter, when the zombie keeps walking to this day? The linked article repeats the myth of barter. And lest people think it's only right-ish economists that keep repeating it, Yanis Varoufakis did so too (in his book "Talking to my daughter about the economy"). And yeah sure, nothing "hinges" on the myth of barter. But it is a symptom, a glaring illustration that economists are really bad at arguing from how real people actually act, and cheerfully embrace just-so stories that support their preferred ideas - which is the linked article's whole game, too.

unmole 5y ago
> Graeber did not claim to be the first debunking the myth of barter. I didn't say Graber claimed that. I was refuting the common defence of the book and emphasising that it was already a mainstream view. > However, what does it even matter, when the zombie keeps walking to this day? > But it is a symptom, a glaring illustration that economists are really bad at arguing from how real people actually act How much does the historical origin of money matter to the understanding economics of today? Economists aren't particularly interested in the origin of money. Any references to barter are usually in fluffy lines like this article or as dumb thought experimens. The fact that some of them get it wrong is not indicative of anything. > cheerfully embrace just-so stories that support their preferred ideas Which is rife across the humanities and not exclusive to economics. Hell, Graber's entire book is full of just that. If you look at popular books or even school text books, they will cheerfully claim that seasons are caused by the change in distance between the earth and the sun. That doesn't mean people working on climate models don't know that's not the case. And Varoufakis is <insert polite term for crackpot>, not exactly representative of mainstream economics.
- md_ 5y ago
  I think your criticism of Graeber is somewhat fair. And it's a fair point that incorrect popular/lay theories don't mean experts don't know how things actually work. That said, I do think Graeber is right to emphasize the role of culture and belief--anthropological ideas--as an antidote to overly quantitative/mechanistic models. I'm not an economist, but it does seem like behavioral economics was pretty revolutionary in advancing the idea that humans are not just rational utility maximizers, despite Keynes using the term "animal spirits" nearly 100 years ago. Again, speaking as a layperson, it's frankly a bit weird to me how distant economics, anthropology, and psychology seem to be from each other.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

>Do you think Graber came up with this? I believe Graeber acknowledge that Marcel Mauss came up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay) long before him ("1925 essay by the French sociologist Marcel Mauss that is the foundation of social theories of reciprocity and gift exchange")

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pydry 5y ago

>Or that this wasn't the mainstream view amongst economists? The myth is certainly taught by mainstream economists, here is one example: http://www2.york.psu.edu/~dxl31/econ14/lecture18.html http://www2.york.psu.edu/~dxl31/econ14/lecture18.html >And Graber doesn't stop there. He pretends like somehow all of economics is hinged upon this Myth of Barter. I think he was specifically targeting neoclassical economists. The idea of Homo Economicus is essentially rooted in a number of myths that depict humans as spherical cows, Adam Smith's story of money emerging from barter being just one. >Adam Smith is not the supreme arbiter and law-giver of economics. Nope, he just has an unusual take because his analysis is more rooted in historical and anthropological study and, of course, he's kind of left wing. This angers people who try to gatekeep economic thought, limiting it to the likes of neoliberal (but still somehow mainstream) ideologues like Mankiw or Milton Friedman. I guarantee that when David Koch made an large donation to Florida State U economics department he didn't do it with the idea that they would teach more Graeber.

unmole 5y ago
> The myth is certainly taught by mainstream economists, Can you please state what you think the supposed myth actually is? I'm asking because people seem to have very different ideas about what it actually is as seen in this very thread. > I think he was specifically targeting neoclassical economists. Quoting Graber: > The answer seems to be that the Myth of Barter cannot go away, because it is central to the entire discourse of economics. Recall here what Smith was trying to do when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Above all, the book was an attempt to establish the newfound discipline of economics as a science. > Nope, he just has an unusual take because his analysis is more rooted in historical and anthropological study and, of course, he's kind of left wing. I'm sorry, Adam Smith is left wing?
- pydry 5y ago
  The myth is that barter arose spontaneously throughout history and that currency arose as a more efficient means of mediating barter. >I'm sorry, Adam Smith is left wing? I was referring to Graeber. He was left wing and anticapitalist. Orthodox (neoclassical) economists like Mankiw tend to be very strongly pro-corporate due to way funding flows in the profession.

mbrudd 5y ago

You are of course welcome to your opinions about these things, but please be respectful enough to spell the late David Graeber's name correctly.

unmole 5y ago
I did not misspell Graeber's name as some deliberate slight.