A good one is the very beginning of the book, where he lambasts the economists use of the coinidence of wants as a just-so story that self-justifies the economi

A good one is the very beginning of the book, where he lambasts the economists use of the coinidence of wants as a just-so story that self-justifies the economists profession. I chuckled, because his anthropological story of the evolution of money is also a just-so story that self-justifies anthropology though I'm inclined to believe it more. Furthermore, throwing out the coincidence of wants model as a phenomenology is also probably misguided. I think it's hard to argue that there isn't social efficiency lost in the informal debt and repayment system, which graeber seems to have an overly high respect for, on top of which, that the social and power dynamics of social debt systems seem, in my mind, to be likely to incipiate more corruption and MORE wealth inequality, than the numismatic debt system. Anyways it's still an incredible (in the good sense) book and everyone should read it for another perspective besides ths neoclassical.