3 ms·

Interesting read, thanks. I'll definitely look into Kanth further; the notion that gender struggle predates class struggle is intriguing, and seems almost obvio

by lukifer 13y ago

Interesting read, thanks. I'll definitely look into Kanth further; the notion that gender struggle predates class struggle is intriguing, and seems almost obvious in hindsight. I agree that much of conventional economics functions largely as apologia and "retroactive continuity" for existing power structures and legacy wealth. While there are obviously spectra of disagreement within the field, as a whole it does seem largely oriented towards received wisdom in its academic culture, but that's from a distinctly outsider perspective. What's your opinion, if any, of David Graeber's ideas in "Debt: The First 5000 Years"?

dredmorbius 13y ago
I've cracked the first 50 pages or so of his book. The writing is dense and Graeber covers a lot of ground. That said: his is some of the most original writing on the topic of money I've seen, period, it's not obviously wrong, to the extent I've read it, it addresses a great many misconceptions baked into economics since the time of Smith. Specifically: correcting Smith's descriptions of pre-money economies as being barter based, which Graeber replaces with gift-based (though that's something which works only in communities up to a certain size, most communal communities peaking around 300 members). Money in general is something that fascinates me (in an abstract, what-is-it and how-does-it-influence-the-economy sense). It seems intrinsically tied to both the fossil-fuel lead growth of the past 200 years. As some have pointed out, the US transition to a central bank, fractional reserve, fiat currency pretty much tracked the milestones of industrialization: railroads (1830s), electricity and industrialization with the start of the petroleum boom (1930), oil imports and Bretton Woods (1950s), and the transition past peak oil with the birth of the petrodollar (1972). Dates somewhat approximate. There's the point that's raised by many (Richard Heinberg and Chris Martenson in particular) that fractional reserve lending and monetary supply growth mandate economic growth, which I haven't fully subscribed to, but that would suggest one primary source of opposition to sustainable, zero-growth economic paradigms.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Specifically: correcting Smith's descriptions of pre-money economies as being barter based, which Graeber replaces with gift-based That's not really a correction; there are pre-currency societies with both barter- and gift-based (and there's not really a clear delineation between the three, there's overlap between barter- and gift-based structures in pre-currency societies, and overlap of all three once currency is in the mix.) > There's the point that's raised by many (Richard Heinberg and Chris Martenson in particular) that fractional reserve lending and monetary supply growth mandate economic growth, which I haven't fully subscribed to, but that would suggest one primary source of opposition to sustainable, zero-growth economic paradigms. The human desire for better things demands economic growth; zero economic growth literally means things never get better (currency-value-based measures of economic growth are proxies for changes in experienced utility; zero economic growth means no increases in experienced utility. That's not really a desirable goal.)
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    > there are pre-currency societies with both barter- and gift-based Smith doesn't allow for the concept of a gift-based economy. Or for the possibility of an explicitly accounts-based economy, also supported by the anthropological record. > zero economic growth literally means things never get better I've argued both sides of that statement myself. I think I'd argue it on an evolutionary basis: the level of supportable complexity is static, but the focus of that complexity, where complexity is used to provide solutions to problems, isn't fixed. As the environment itself changes, or even interests within that environment, changes can occur within the economy. It's bounded but not static. The material standard of living cannot increase overall, but its application and allocation can be shifted. And whether or not the goal is desirable really has zero impact on how real the situation is. That's a classic wishful thinking response -- or if you prefer, argumentum ad consequentiam, appeal to consequences, or Diax's Rake. The Universe doesn't owe you your desired lifestyle.

by lukifer 13y ago

dredmorbius 13y ago

I've cracked the first 50 pages or so of his book. The writing is dense and Graeber covers a lot of ground. That said: his is some of the most original writing on the topic of money I've seen, period, it's not obviously wrong, to the extent I've read it, it addresses a great many misconceptions baked into economics since the time of Smith. Specifically: correcting Smith's descriptions of pre-money economies as being barter based, which Graeber replaces with gift-based (though that's something which works only in communities up to a certain size, most communal communities peaking around 300 members). Money in general is something that fascinates me (in an abstract, what-is-it and how-does-it-influence-the-economy sense). It seems intrinsically tied to both the fossil-fuel lead growth of the past 200 years. As some have pointed out, the US transition to a central bank, fractional reserve, fiat currency pretty much tracked the milestones of industrialization: railroads (1830s), electricity and industrialization with the start of the petroleum boom (1930), oil imports and Bretton Woods (1950s), and the transition past peak oil with the birth of the petrodollar (1972). Dates somewhat approximate. There's the point that's raised by many (Richard Heinberg and Chris Martenson in particular) that fractional reserve lending and monetary supply growth mandate economic growth, which I haven't fully subscribed to, but that would suggest one primary source of opposition to sustainable, zero-growth economic paradigms.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Specifically: correcting Smith's descriptions of pre-money economies as being barter based, which Graeber replaces with gift-based That's not really a correction; there are pre-currency societies with both barter- and gift-based (and there's not really a clear delineation between the three, there's overlap between barter- and gift-based structures in pre-currency societies, and overlap of all three once currency is in the mix.) > There's the point that's raised by many (Richard Heinberg and Chris Martenson in particular) that fractional reserve lending and monetary supply growth mandate economic growth, which I haven't fully subscribed to, but that would suggest one primary source of opposition to sustainable, zero-growth economic paradigms. The human desire for better things demands economic growth; zero economic growth literally means things never get better (currency-value-based measures of economic growth are proxies for changes in experienced utility; zero economic growth means no increases in experienced utility. That's not really a desirable goal.)
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  > there are pre-currency societies with both barter- and gift-based Smith doesn't allow for the concept of a gift-based economy. Or for the possibility of an explicitly accounts-based economy, also supported by the anthropological record. > zero economic growth literally means things never get better I've argued both sides of that statement myself. I think I'd argue it on an evolutionary basis: the level of supportable complexity is static, but the focus of that complexity, where complexity is used to provide solutions to problems, isn't fixed. As the environment itself changes, or even interests within that environment, changes can occur within the economy. It's bounded but not static. The material standard of living cannot increase overall, but its application and allocation can be shifted. And whether or not the goal is desirable really has zero impact on how real the situation is. That's a classic wishful thinking response -- or if you prefer, argumentum ad consequentiam, appeal to consequences, or Diax's Rake. The Universe doesn't owe you your desired lifestyle.