tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post8797228634392460332..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Book review: Debt: The First 5000 YearsNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-13071546233576994152014-11-18T19:37:48.422-05:002014-11-18T19:37:48.422-05:00I think you underestimate how new some of the mate...I think you underestimate how new some of the material is for a non-economist. As a fairly well read person I found a lot of the early part of the book (e.g, the bit about the myth of barter) genuinely revelationary. Even if the insights were already known to economics specialists there is a value to popularising them in a readable way. [I really enjoy his writing style, but I get the impression you don't, ymmv as always]<br /><br /><br />I'll admit that the shift to the modern day isn't done as well though. In some ways it feels like two books, the last one somewhat rushed. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12949686339371232610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89332379024003154082014-11-16T14:51:18.792-05:002014-11-16T14:51:18.792-05:00But that, dear poster, is precisely Graeber's ...But that, dear poster, is precisely Graeber's point: barter is a system that people who are used to having money switch to when they can't use money anymore. It was not the original means of transacting goods. It was only when social groups became too large for informal systems of general exchange that spot payments and contractual debts came into existence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-69183766160642295132014-11-15T08:18:26.572-05:002014-11-15T08:18:26.572-05:00Sorry to comment anonymously. Happy to give direct...Sorry to comment anonymously. Happy to give direct contact.<br /><br />I liked the book very much. Graeber answers several questions. 1. He answers the question of which came first. Money or debt. The question of the stability properties of debt. And he gives an historic appraisal of this issue. Your review seems mostly to say you didnt understand the book. Am I wrong?<br /><br />The last piece I read that was as insightful on the nature of money was by frank hahn - money and inflation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-13260777598627987442014-11-14T16:38:38.371-05:002014-11-14T16:38:38.371-05:00I don't plan to read this book because it clea...I don't plan to read this book because it clearly makes too many mistakes to be taken seriously as a whole. I do like it's discussion of debt and the antropological origins of debt. I think Noah dismisses too much by saying that looking at capitalism through the lens of debt doesn't provide more insight into it's inherent flaws. I think it does.<br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/inequality-and-economic-shampoo-cycle-bubble-bust-repeat/Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-84864298098323106662014-11-14T08:30:24.276-05:002014-11-14T08:30:24.276-05:00If anybunny wants sprawling try the Crooked Timber...If anybunny wants sprawling try the Crooked Timber seminar on Graeber. Makes the book look concise and occupies all possible parameter spacesEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-90719524504197104812014-11-13T17:28:37.544-05:002014-11-13T17:28:37.544-05:00The worst part about David Graeber is that he is s...The worst part about David Graeber is that he is so annoyingly self-righteous, over-confident, and downright narcissistic.<br /><br />Just listen to him talk about his book on YouTube.<br /><br />He talks as if he has just descended from intellectual heaven to re-educate all economists, who are fools, plebians, an intellectual underclass.<br /><br />That is his tone and manner as he covers poorly structured ideas many of which are actually well-known to economists and have been for a very, very long time.<br /><br />Which makes it even worse. I mean if you are going to act like you are an intellectual guru, at least have the coherent, insightful ideas to match your attitude. He absolutely does not.Real Musicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-46897784034810504982014-11-11T23:29:23.167-05:002014-11-11T23:29:23.167-05:00I haven't read the book nor do I care do, but ...I haven't read the book nor do I care do, but your post and your further responses towards people disagreeing are an exercise in juvenile tribalism and are disgusting and you are another one of the many economists who are an embarrassment to economists everywhere. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-12620325765313654762014-11-11T21:26:18.250-05:002014-11-11T21:26:18.250-05:00There is an earlier book on debt by James Macdonal...There is an earlier book on debt by James Macdonald "A nation deep in debt: the financial roots of democracy. I am reading it now but much of it is going over my head. I wonder whether somebody can comment on it. There is an enthusiastic review by James Galbraith but the book seems to assume some detailed knowledge of European history and finance.gaddeswaruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16509075029154476375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-45046543892405424142014-11-11T13:20:04.950-05:002014-11-11T13:20:04.950-05:00It's not always clear who has the "power&...It's not always clear who has the "power" in a wage relationship. I am a wage earner and because of my particular skillset and also what I've learned working at my particular company, I feel like I have leverage over my employer. The key, and I admit I've gotten lucky in what I've been exposed to (primarily outside the classroom), is having a skillset that is hard to replace and in need. And building a skill that is hard to replace is easier said than done and many times requires some luck on several dimensions. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78592701484647610372014-11-11T07:39:08.102-05:002014-11-11T07:39:08.102-05:00I wonder whether Graeber and his blog comment defe...I wonder whether Graeber and his blog comment defenders are anomalies, or anthropologists really believe that the historicity of barter economies is a foundation of economics. That is just such a weird error that could have been avoided by looking at undergraduate econ 101 textbooks. Where are the evidentiary claims of bartering pasts? Mankiw? It is honestly mind boggling because I can't imagine that Graeber avoided ALL economists when writing his book. Some economist must have presented this idiosyncratic representation as mainstream. Seriously bizarre.anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-29940246723868104072014-11-11T07:23:40.418-05:002014-11-11T07:23:40.418-05:00Actually, your comment exemplifies the problem wit...Actually, your comment exemplifies the problem with Graeber type narratives. Like Graeber, or because of him, you actually think that the barter narrative is an empirical fact in economics, upon which the "foundations of economics" have been developed. But this confusion may be the result of different methodologies in anthropology and economics. Barter is not important for having been true in the past. The concept is a useful way of thinking about money, credit, and liabilities. It's like imagining a wheel with corners as a method of thinking about the relationships between the road and the wheel's surface. It is trivial to note that cornered wheels are uncommon. The statement that "empiry has disproven the foundations of economics" when you are talking about the existence of barter economies is just a weird myth. Before making such statements, or including it in a book, why not talk to an economist and see if you are committed to a really silly thought?anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-51511652989351947992014-11-11T05:02:28.002-05:002014-11-11T05:02:28.002-05:00And I'll add that for a large amount of profes...And I'll add that for a large amount of professionals, 2008 put them in an impossible quandary: Admit that you don't know what you're doing, have no education of any consequence, and no tangible or useful experience. <br /><br />I think you should all just shut up. At the very least, stop your incessant bloviating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-441581800639140502014-11-11T04:49:28.525-05:002014-11-11T04:49:28.525-05:00Economists are obviously irritated that several ot...Economists are obviously irritated that several other fields of academia has been studying the problems that has been their sole domain until now. But remember that this interest was piqued by the complete failure of economic orthodoxy in 2008.<br /><br />I think you are getting this about as wrong as is possible. Graeber's point is that credit was always the basis of economic transactions. And while you pretend that economists don't believe in the barter-to-money story that EVERY SINGLE TEXTBOOK on economics tells, the point would be that this intellectual edifice is completely worthless. There was never a time when physical money replaced barter - rather, credit systems arose long before the invention of anonymous, physical currency.<br /><br />You can whack him with your theories all you want, but empiry trumps theory every time. And right here we come to the crux of the matter: Empiry has disproven the FOUNDATIONS of economics. Economists like to tell us that even though we know their models are wrong, they are still useful in understanding the world.<br /><br />It's no wonder that academics from other fields feel free to explore your field, when your own approach is so shoddy.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-27818073130372330132014-11-10T21:15:43.896-05:002014-11-10T21:15:43.896-05:00"Graeber pours this old wine into a new glass..."Graeber pours this old wine into a new glass."<br /><br />You're the worst person in all of history. The cliche you meant to write is "Graeber pours this old wine into a new bottle", which is a bad idea, rather than "old wine into a new glass" which is a pleasant after noon.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wine_into_Old_Wineskins<br /><br />I hope George Orwell comes back to life and kills your whole family.<br /><br />https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm<br /><br />(note: maybe not _all_ of history, and maybe _some_ of your family doesn't entirely bare the blame)C Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-79495006001659690002014-11-10T15:06:30.361-05:002014-11-10T15:06:30.361-05:00Noah, I've not read Debt, I've no idea who...Noah, I've not read Debt, I've no idea who the author is, I'm an economist, I'm fairly left wing and I believe that we need some form of capitalism (ie people should be allowed to own things).<br /><br />I think your being a bit harsh here though. And I think you may be indulging in bigging up you're objectivity. "Look at me, I'm tough on the austerity mongers but I'm tough on the lefties too."<br /><br />A more generous reading might be that more debt makes capitalism less good and we could organise ourselves to have less debt. Your paraphrasing suggests he has good arguments why this might be true.<br /><br />Also, the non industrious poor really don't hurt anyone in any real sense. If you assume that the people that produce things and pay taxes first must pay for the public services that they use before they start paying for the non industrious (or industrious) poor. You have to pretty rich before this happens, rich enough that it doesn't hurt you.<br /><br />And the implication that being industrious is in some way bad does not stem from that quote.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32719004820485541152014-11-10T13:41:18.608-05:002014-11-10T13:41:18.608-05:00Brad Delong on Graeber:
http://delong.typepad.com...Brad Delong on Graeber:<br /><br />http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/11/monday-smackdown-in-the-absence-of-high-quality-delong-smackdowns-back-to-david-graeber.html#moreAbsalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-57159859572102370502014-11-10T10:23:25.286-05:002014-11-10T10:23:25.286-05:00"Metal: the First 5000 Years" totally ex..."Metal: the First 5000 Years" totally exists. Unfortunately, some editor insisted on changing the title to "Guns, Germs, and Steel."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9840899905916897942014-11-10T01:54:35.143-05:002014-11-10T01:54:35.143-05:00Thanks for reading this so I don't have to. It...Thanks for reading this so I don't have to. It's remarkable how many people think that ECON 101 textbooks represent the state of the art.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-2714536549030858672014-11-09T18:57:09.846-05:002014-11-09T18:57:09.846-05:00Richard Branson?Richard Branson?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977684524676621423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89989670652306299482014-11-09T18:56:32.157-05:002014-11-09T18:56:32.157-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977684524676621423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35700322605135697672014-11-09T08:20:24.407-05:002014-11-09T08:20:24.407-05:00Noah,
You are a nincompoop. See this first:
htt...Noah,<br /><br />You are a nincompoop. See this first:<br /><br />http://aeon.co/video/society/banking-on-change-a-short-film-about-microloans/<br /><br />Say you somehow borrowed a million dollars (I will not give you!) and then took that interstellar flight on Virgin spacecraft and never came back because UFO fellows liked your glasses, who would pay your debt on this earth?KVnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-25093751130181077672014-11-08T19:26:38.890-05:002014-11-08T19:26:38.890-05:00Philip P is right that the Wiki entry does a good ...Philip P is right that the Wiki entry does a good job of encapsulating the thrust and approach of the book. <br /><br />He's also right that you missed that entirely.<br /><br />I'd be impressed and interested if you had acknowledged then engaged with that very cogent and coherent point. Since you didn't, I'm neither. (And I'm often both by your work; this is something of an exception.)<br /><br />I found the book very messy too, thus annoying. That's often/always true of good, wide-ranging anthropology. The lack of a crystalline theoretical structure constraining the observation is something of a virtue. <br /><br />His marxist slant gets in the way some, but it's like reading the Economist or driving on the left side of a crowned road where you know the crowning is consistent; if you just hold the wheel to the right, you go in a straight line. <br /><br />Also you should read Randall Wray on history of money and follow his footnotes. Much better anthropology/history than chatting with some "monetary" economists.Steve Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11895481216028771016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-74716063938752317822014-11-08T12:50:49.039-05:002014-11-08T12:50:49.039-05:00Have not read the book. You say the book lacks a c...Have not read the book. You say the book lacks a coherent spine. That is a pity. However, if it does contain some useful information about how monetary systems actually work, it has more worth in helping to understand how the world works and how to solve problems of poverty than more than 500 pages of RBC or NK theory, for example, however coherent they may be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-48055898607678994892014-11-07T21:22:32.784-05:002014-11-07T21:22:32.784-05:00The reason I posted the link here is because Graeb...The reason I posted the link here is because Graeber specifically calls out a "Biblical-style Jubilee". I mostly praise attempts at private debt reduction and only say that progressives are being extreme conservatives on this issue as it regards any attempt at public policy, mostly by exposing the idealized policy to actual details that would confront it in the real world when you think more completely about debt and ownership. If your response is that when progressives say "Jubilee" they aren't referring to the actual historical policies that they themselves reference, but instead they are referring to some vaguely reasonable redistribution with clear moral and practical implications, then you're kind of making my point.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-64840577291315364182014-11-07T18:41:07.885-05:002014-11-07T18:41:07.885-05:00Hi Noah,
I'm impressed that you've read th...Hi Noah,<br />I'm impressed that you've read the whole book. I think that most people wouldn´t do it for some Graeberites. But you've read the book and on this foundation you have written, an informative honest and fair criticism, which was very enjoyable to read.<br />Thank you.<br />Regards<br />Wonnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15617818477369715829noreply@blogger.com