2 ms·

I've read "Debt" and responded more fully here [1]. But I'm curious: given your reading of "Debt", what ordering would you change in my post besides the myth o

I've read "Debt" and responded more fully here [1]. But I'm curious: given your reading of "Debt", what ordering would you change in my post besides the myth of barter? My sense is that people are reacting to the first couple sentences and missing the entire rest of the post. I don't really see how Graeber is related to the Fed funds rate or currency pegs, e.g. Of course money is political, and I could have framed everything in terms of state violence and control, but that's essentially a different blog post. I don't think that adds a lot of clarity for what mechanically happens at Jackson Hole. Happy to hear how I'm wrong. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785213

evrydayhustling 5d ago
100%, that's why I led with the post being useful as-is -- you don't have to shift your view to Graeber's because we can always link to it as a supplement :). IMO part of why myth-of-barter has persisted is because it has worked for helping folks understand our modern finance system (among other reasons, b/c many folks building that system grew up on it as well). So it makes sense to use in an explainer. With that said, it doesn't feel to me like it detracts from anything to start with obligation before currency. Markers of past favors seems like as easy a place to start as trading stones.