>The distinction between what is presented as a thought experiment and what is supposedly claimed as historical fact is most definitely material. A) it's been

>The distinction between what is presented as a thought experiment and what is supposedly claimed as historical fact is most definitely material. A) it's been presented as both. The example you pointedly ignored that I posted above is one such example. B) It's not really that material. The story serves the same purpose either way - both in the above example and in, say, Stiglitz. >it's necessary to clarify what the myth actually is and why it supposedly is so important for capitalism. It is which is why Graeber did explain why it's important. I thought you read the book? >In a deleted comment you claimed you read it in Mankiw. After writing that comment I double checked the 8th edition of the text to see if i remembered correctly and ctrl-f and found zero about barter in the whole book so I guess we both misremembered. I cant honestly remember which econ textbook I read it in since it was 16 years ago, but I do know that I read it and believed it and there are plenty of other examples that can be found via google, so whatever.