3 ms·

>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.

by 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.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > The myth is that barter arose spontaneously throughout history and that currency arose as a more efficient means of mediating barter. Interesting. Did you actually read Debt? Because Graeber himself says that economists don't claim a barter system as a historical fact: > It's important to emphasize that this is not presented as something that actually happened, but as a purely imaginary exercise. As I suspected, it seems you're arguing something else entirely
    - pydry 5y ago
      He's talking about a specific example lifted from a particular textbook with that quote where they used insinuation to push the myth. He cites another example by Stiglitz just beneath it. I lifted a different example from some other lecture notes in my link above where they just flat out said "this is what used to happen". Really, there is no shortage of examples. It's the same myth in all cases, (although I wouldnt be surprised if some econ textbooks got patched since the book came out). Im not sure exactly what youre trying to prove here. The distinction you're trying to highlight is hardly material. Yes, I obviously did read the book. I also used to believe the myth because I first read it in an undergraduate econ textbook.
      - unmole 5y ago
        The distinction between what is presented as a thought experiment and what is supposedly claimed as historical fact is most definitely material. And Graeber makes it clear what he's talking about: > It's important to emphasize that this is not presented as something that actually happened, but as a purely imaginary exercise. "To see that society benefits from a medium of exchange" write Begg, Fischer and Dornbuch (Economics, 2oos), "imagine a barter economy. " "Imagine the difficulty you would have today," write Maunder, Myers, Wall, and Miller (Economics Explairzed, 1991) , "if you had to exchange your labor directly for the fruits of someone else's labor." "Imagine," write Parkin and King (Economics, 1995) , "you have roosters, but you want roses". He quotes Stiglitz after this and remarks: > Again this is just a make-believe land Before claiming it's the same myth it's necessary to clarify what the myth actually is and why it supposedly is so important for capitalism. > Yes, I obviously did read the book. I also used to believe the myth because I first read it in an undergraduate econ textbook. In a deleted comment you claimed you read it in Mankiw. There it is most definitely presented as a thought experiment asking the reader to imagine the inconvenience of barter.

by pydry 5y ago

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.
- unmole 5y ago
  > The myth is that barter arose spontaneously throughout history and that currency arose as a more efficient means of mediating barter. Interesting. Did you actually read Debt? Because Graeber himself says that economists don't claim a barter system as a historical fact: > It's important to emphasize that this is not presented as something that actually happened, but as a purely imaginary exercise. As I suspected, it seems you're arguing something else entirely
  - pydry 5y ago
    He's talking about a specific example lifted from a particular textbook with that quote where they used insinuation to push the myth. He cites another example by Stiglitz just beneath it. I lifted a different example from some other lecture notes in my link above where they just flat out said "this is what used to happen". Really, there is no shortage of examples. It's the same myth in all cases, (although I wouldnt be surprised if some econ textbooks got patched since the book came out). Im not sure exactly what youre trying to prove here. The distinction you're trying to highlight is hardly material. Yes, I obviously did read the book. I also used to believe the myth because I first read it in an undergraduate econ textbook.
    - unmole 5y ago
      The distinction between what is presented as a thought experiment and what is supposedly claimed as historical fact is most definitely material. And Graeber makes it clear what he's talking about: > It's important to emphasize that this is not presented as something that actually happened, but as a purely imaginary exercise. "To see that society benefits from a medium of exchange" write Begg, Fischer and Dornbuch (Economics, 2oos), "imagine a barter economy. " "Imagine the difficulty you would have today," write Maunder, Myers, Wall, and Miller (Economics Explairzed, 1991) , "if you had to exchange your labor directly for the fruits of someone else's labor." "Imagine," write Parkin and King (Economics, 1995) , "you have roosters, but you want roses". He quotes Stiglitz after this and remarks: > Again this is just a make-believe land Before claiming it's the same myth it's necessary to clarify what the myth actually is and why it supposedly is so important for capitalism. > Yes, I obviously did read the book. I also used to believe the myth because I first read it in an undergraduate econ textbook. In a deleted comment you claimed you read it in Mankiw. There it is most definitely presented as a thought experiment asking the reader to imagine the inconvenience of barter.