3 ms·

Graeber claims 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

by unmole 3y ago

Graeber claims 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. This blithe conflation of credit with benevolence should evoke laughter from anyone who is even remotely familiar with how businesses are run. Graeber pretends that all of economics rests on the Myth of Barter. He ascribes moral positions to Smith that are invented whole cloth, smears all economics with his own fabrications and builds up his grand neo-liberal economics conspiracy theory. Adam Smith wrote a whole book on The Theory of Moral Sentiments,that somehow doesn't find any references in Graeber's screed. Then there's the bizzare Iraq war conspiracy theory, the fundamental mischaracterisation of the safest securities on the planet and a culture essentialist caricature of China.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Could you elaborate on the Iraq war conspiracy theory?
- unmole 3y ago
  Graeber suggests that Iraq was invaded soon after it started selling oil for euros instead of dollars. In reality, the switch happened in late 2000 but Iraq wasn't invaded till March 2003. And it happened under the UN's Food for Oil-for-Food program and was authorised by the Security Council: https://www.un.org/depts/oip/background/chron.html https://www.un.org/depts/oip/background/chron.html
  - tremon 3y ago
    Two years (from late 2000 till early 2003) is absolutely "soon" in international political timeframes.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      True, but Iraq making some non-dollar payments for oil is absolutely insignificant in international monetary flows.
    - unmole 3y ago
      The US invading Afghanistan less than a month after 9/11 was soon. Two years is too long to even establish a causality chain. Again, the switch was authorized by the UN Security Council. The US could have simply vetoed the resolution if it was considered a threat.
      - cma 3y ago
        >The US could have simply vetoed the resolution if it was considered a threat. I'm not advocating the theory, but W. Bush wasn't inaugurated until early 2001, so if it was a difference between admins it couldn't have been vetoed in time.
notahacker 3y ago
And for less politicised stuff, there's bizarre descriptions like "Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other’s garages…". (Graeber blamed his copyeditor, insisted it was an isolated mistake and then got angry at people for listing his other mistakes.) I actually think the theory of money as debt is broadly correct (and whilst it's not original to Graeber, his treatment is longer and more interesting than others), but it's just very, very sloppy on details. And yeah, you'd prefer a book on debt to not argue that money and bond markets were characterised by people paying tribute...
panick21_ 3y ago
He also ignores many situations were Barter does happen. He ignores that in economic history economists and others had already studied and written on things like gifts and credit. He ignores much of the moral philosophy of the Scottish enlightenment in general. Frankly, he simply hates economics and economists. While it is absolutely clear that he has never actually read in economics or economic history. I think he actually literally believes that reading economics will 'taint' him. Let look at an example. When people pointed to Menger work on some of the things that he praises anthropologists for. He responded with 'all Menger did was some math' or something along those lines. This is pretty baflfing, because anybody with even the most basic knowlage of economic history, knows that this is not true. So where did Graeber get this ridiculous idea? Turns out, after being informed of these things, he likely just googled the name and found Karl Menger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Menger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Menger) who turns out is a mathematician. But he is the son of the economist 'Carl Menger'. And why this is particularly bad, is because Carl Menger is one of the most famous economists, being part of the 'marginal revolution' in economics. And further, he is well known to have written on the exact topics discuss in Graeber book. Basically he would be on of the top 3 people you would start to read if you are interest in the subject of money, money formation, various forms exchange and so on. All Graeber seems to actually know is a small part of Adam Smith, and even then he is doing his own interpretation. He ignores all other works of Smith and literally all other works by economist. And even ignoring all those discussion, the conclusion Graeber ends up drawing from this whole debate doesn't actually support by the evidence. So the whole discussion is kind of pointless.

by unmole 3y ago

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

Could you elaborate on the Iraq war conspiracy theory?

unmole 3y ago
Graeber suggests that Iraq was invaded soon after it started selling oil for euros instead of dollars. In reality, the switch happened in late 2000 but Iraq wasn't invaded till March 2003. And it happened under the UN's Food for Oil-for-Food program and was authorised by the Security Council: https://www.un.org/depts/oip/background/chron.html https://www.un.org/depts/oip/background/chron.html
- tremon 3y ago
  Two years (from late 2000 till early 2003) is absolutely "soon" in international political timeframes.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    True, but Iraq making some non-dollar payments for oil is absolutely insignificant in international monetary flows.
  - unmole 3y ago
    The US invading Afghanistan less than a month after 9/11 was soon. Two years is too long to even establish a causality chain. Again, the switch was authorized by the UN Security Council. The US could have simply vetoed the resolution if it was considered a threat.
    - cma 3y ago
      >The US could have simply vetoed the resolution if it was considered a threat. I'm not advocating the theory, but W. Bush wasn't inaugurated until early 2001, so if it was a difference between admins it couldn't have been vetoed in time.

notahacker 3y ago

And for less politicised stuff, there's bizarre descriptions like "Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other’s garages…". (Graeber blamed his copyeditor, insisted it was an isolated mistake and then got angry at people for listing his other mistakes.) I actually think the theory of money as debt is broadly correct (and whilst it's not original to Graeber, his treatment is longer and more interesting than others), but it's just very, very sloppy on details. And yeah, you'd prefer a book on debt to not argue that money and bond markets were characterised by people paying tribute...

panick21_ 3y ago

He also ignores many situations were Barter does happen. He ignores that in economic history economists and others had already studied and written on things like gifts and credit. He ignores much of the moral philosophy of the Scottish enlightenment in general. Frankly, he simply hates economics and economists. While it is absolutely clear that he has never actually read in economics or economic history. I think he actually literally believes that reading economics will 'taint' him. Let look at an example. When people pointed to Menger work on some of the things that he praises anthropologists for. He responded with 'all Menger did was some math' or something along those lines. This is pretty baflfing, because anybody with even the most basic knowlage of economic history, knows that this is not true. So where did Graeber get this ridiculous idea? Turns out, after being informed of these things, he likely just googled the name and found Karl Menger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Menger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Menger) who turns out is a mathematician. But he is the son of the economist 'Carl Menger'. And why this is particularly bad, is because Carl Menger is one of the most famous economists, being part of the 'marginal revolution' in economics. And further, he is well known to have written on the exact topics discuss in Graeber book. Basically he would be on of the top 3 people you would start to read if you are interest in the subject of money, money formation, various forms exchange and so on. All Graeber seems to actually know is a small part of Adam Smith, and even then he is doing his own interpretation. He ignores all other works of Smith and literally all other works by economist. And even ignoring all those discussion, the conclusion Graeber ends up drawing from this whole debate doesn't actually support by the evidence. So the whole discussion is kind of pointless.