4 ms·

I have heard good things about David Graeber’s book “Debt: the first 5000 years.”

unmole 4y ago
Please no. It might teach you about quaint cultural practices of remote tribes but it's completely useless for understanding how money works in the real world.
- specialist 4y ago
  Anthropologist writes anthropology book about the anthropology of debt, currency, and money. Graeber's great crime is debunking the myth that barter predates money. The historical and anthropological records show that debt precedes currencies. Further, known instances of barter emerge when a society's monetary system implodes. Academia and pundits should update their narratives accordingly. Among many impact observations, the bits about debt crises stands out. Spoiler: recurring crises and debt forgiveness is the historical norm. Academia and pundits should update their narratives accordingly. Graeber does not discuss finance, economics, accounting, monetary policy, etc. Because it's all out of scope. And outside of Graeber's fields of study.
  - unmole 4y ago
    > Anthropologist writes anthropology book about the anthropology of debt, currency, and money. In which he misinterprets the history and ideas of mainstream economics, calls the safest securities on the planet a debt that will never be paid and spins bizarre conspiracy theories about the Iraq invasion. > Graeber's great crime is debunking the myth that barter predates money. This bullshit defense again. And the people who keep spouting this are happy to ignore what Graeber actually says about textbook descriptions of barter: 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)... Economics textbooks discuss barter as a thought experiment to hilight the utility of money. They don't care about the historical origins of money because they are out of scope and outside of field of study of economics. Graeber builds a nonsensical thesis based on the assumption that the whole of economics rests on this myth of barter. > Graeber does not discuss finance, economics, accounting, monetary policy, etc. Which makes Debt completely useless for someone like OP who is looking for Resources to understand deeply how money works.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - squillion 4y ago
      I completely agree that Graeber's barter myth "debunking" is bullshit. However, even as a thought experiment, the barter story was never very enlightening - actually more confusing than anything. It suggests that money is a commodity (salt, gold, cigarettes or whatever), while we know that's not the case. The gold standard is long gone and bank lending creates money. These facts are very hard to explain starting from barter. I still recommend Graeber's book. If you already have a decent grasp of macroeconomics it can provide perspective and depth.
    - specialist 4y ago
      The anthropologists vs economists slap fight is at least decades old. (Barter and Economic Disintegration [1985]) So economists have had time to adjust. Sure, Begg now knows it's a myth. But even he concedes the myth continues to do a lot of heavy lifting. The criticism is that "mainstream economics" is wrong. Which is trivially verifiable. I found a handful of contemporary statements that barter precedes money in just a few minutes. The point is such a minor part of Graeber's thesis. And yet it triggered pundits. Getting fluffed up about nonissues serves to push serious consideration to the side. For all the usual reasons. -- > ...spins bizarre conspiracy theories about the Iraq invasion. What?

Please no. It might teach you about quaint cultural practices of remote tribes but it's completely useless for understanding how money works in the real world.

specialist 4y ago
Anthropologist writes anthropology book about the anthropology of debt, currency, and money. Graeber's great crime is debunking the myth that barter predates money. The historical and anthropological records show that debt precedes currencies. Further, known instances of barter emerge when a society's monetary system implodes. Academia and pundits should update their narratives accordingly. Among many impact observations, the bits about debt crises stands out. Spoiler: recurring crises and debt forgiveness is the historical norm. Academia and pundits should update their narratives accordingly. Graeber does not discuss finance, economics, accounting, monetary policy, etc. Because it's all out of scope. And outside of Graeber's fields of study.
- unmole 4y ago
  > Anthropologist writes anthropology book about the anthropology of debt, currency, and money. In which he misinterprets the history and ideas of mainstream economics, calls the safest securities on the planet a debt that will never be paid and spins bizarre conspiracy theories about the Iraq invasion. > Graeber's great crime is debunking the myth that barter predates money. This bullshit defense again. And the people who keep spouting this are happy to ignore what Graeber actually says about textbook descriptions of barter: 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)... Economics textbooks discuss barter as a thought experiment to hilight the utility of money. They don't care about the historical origins of money because they are out of scope and outside of field of study of economics. Graeber builds a nonsensical thesis based on the assumption that the whole of economics rests on this myth of barter. > Graeber does not discuss finance, economics, accounting, monetary policy, etc. Which makes Debt completely useless for someone like OP who is looking for Resources to understand deeply how money works.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - squillion 4y ago
    I completely agree that Graeber's barter myth "debunking" is bullshit. However, even as a thought experiment, the barter story was never very enlightening - actually more confusing than anything. It suggests that money is a commodity (salt, gold, cigarettes or whatever), while we know that's not the case. The gold standard is long gone and bank lending creates money. These facts are very hard to explain starting from barter. I still recommend Graeber's book. If you already have a decent grasp of macroeconomics it can provide perspective and depth.
  - specialist 4y ago
    The anthropologists vs economists slap fight is at least decades old. (Barter and Economic Disintegration [1985]) So economists have had time to adjust. Sure, Begg now knows it's a myth. But even he concedes the myth continues to do a lot of heavy lifting. The criticism is that "mainstream economics" is wrong. Which is trivially verifiable. I found a handful of contemporary statements that barter precedes money in just a few minutes. The point is such a minor part of Graeber's thesis. And yet it triggered pundits. Getting fluffed up about nonissues serves to push serious consideration to the side. For all the usual reasons. -- > ...spins bizarre conspiracy theories about the Iraq invasion. What?