Graeber has always been terrible, 'Debt' was not brilliant. It was a bit of cherypicked history with overdone imterpretation added, while ignoring lots of other

Graeber has always been terrible, 'Debt' was not brilliant. It was a bit of cherypicked history with overdone imterpretation added, while ignoring lots of other history. His true passion seems to be to scream 'all economists ever in historywhere horrible shills of capitalism'. But what the book proves instead is that he hasn't read much economic history or history of economic thoght. He goes on and on about how great antroplogy is, and doesnt want to hear that 'political economists' had talked about these ideas long before antropology was even a profession. When people told him and suggested some books, he just insulted them. His books are that, cherry picked bad histroy with lots of liberal interpretation and opinion.