Sign in with Facebook
Void lon iXaarii's Reviews > Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
by
by
I would call this an interesting but dangerous book. As opposed to other books in which every moment was a learning and enlightening enjoyment this book was exhaustingly tense because I found it to be a very confusing mix of dangerous (but plausible) ideas written in a smart way, and interesting historical or world data. So, I'll start the review with the negative things, and then move onto the positive ones:
- the author seems to have a clear agenda, of attacking capitalism & free market ideas, and to this end he's willing to use what I would call disloyal weapons. I'm happy to hear of opposing ideas when they are argued logically and without resorting to trickery, but the author uses a large amount of mixed and confusing philosophical debate to confuse, and imposes language with moral undertones to push his arguments: for example in his attempt to vilify clear quantization of values as we do through currency he calls the non-monetary solution "human economy" (the other one must be inhuman, right?). Similarly he perverts the concept of familiar/church/friends sharing which I haven't heard any free market/capitalist people deny (on the contrary they seem to more often have healthier family & social relationships while their opponents like Marx have broken families, suicidal children and other tragedies), aaa, where was I? yes, he perverts these positive relationships by calling them "comunistic", thereby bringing their positive aura onto a social/political system that has caused millions of deaths and huge suffering... I find such trickery disloyal
- from the title and description I had assumed the book would be largely filled with historical data, but mostly i had to endure philosophical bla-bla-bla and a particularly non-objective style of exposition
- i call this a dangerous book because I know there are a lot of people out there with soft logic abilities, and less historical knowledge or analytic abilities, and they might be tricked by the book, so i would recommend the book only if you've read at least another 5 historical and economics books with a more analytic lean, be it from the ruthless logic of Rothbard & Mises or the historical facts of people such as Sowell
- I liken the authors style and method to Marx because like him his goal is to attack capitalism (did you know that not capitalists but Marx coined the term with the purpose of attack?), and they are both very smart people with high entertainment value/intelectual writing and both spend a lot of time attacking something while then being unsurprisingly blank at proposing anything better in a consequent matter so that others can poke holes at their position too, instead they are positionless and thus can't be attacked themselves. Also the author seems very tricky in his attacks... does he mean to attack the system whereby people save first and then use those savings? does he propose that debt spending is better? does he think that nothing can/should be quantized and we should all remain in a primitive society style (yes, he searches a lot in history and present for obscure examples of tribes to argue his points, but doesn't seem to notice that maybe there's a reason those were left behind). Instead he seems to define capitalism as everything he can cherry pick through history and present day that is bad, which of course makes it very easy to argue against them.
There are howerever good things in the book too:
+ while IMHO setting up straw many arguments and guilty parties he does seem to see some big problems, he sees how the system today will probably go through a historically recurrent reset of debt and maybe complexity
+ he dares to talk about subjects such as the American empire, the support it gets from countries with troops stationed in their territories, and such things
+ while with some biases he does bring forth very interesting historical data about debt & credit based system in the past
+ if you have the right historical and economics background, particularly if you are versed in hard money ways of thinking it may provide some interesting alternative points of view which should improve your perspective as to possibilities of not just where we have been but where we might be going
Overall I'd say it was a useful addition to my mental library, but one filled with many logical, moral and ideological traps, which is why I wouldn't advise it to many people as I find the author to be brilliantly smart and subtle, and some of his propositions are expressed in such ways that few people will be able to uncover them, let alone respond and fight them.
PS: thanks for reading my humble thoughts. They are of course just my very own subjective, fallible and (with more books) evolving perspective and should not be taken too seriously. I started writing them down to remind myself of past books before I completely forget them (as I often did)... but if in the process they should be of interest or even use to anybody else I can only say I'm honored & happy to be of some humble service.
Writing these things down ends up adding up to surprisingly long times, which is why I try to be brief. If in doing so I upset anybody by not doing the customary social dance of words please understand and forgive me.
- the author seems to have a clear agenda, of attacking capitalism & free market ideas, and to this end he's willing to use what I would call disloyal weapons. I'm happy to hear of opposing ideas when they are argued logically and without resorting to trickery, but the author uses a large amount of mixed and confusing philosophical debate to confuse, and imposes language with moral undertones to push his arguments: for example in his attempt to vilify clear quantization of values as we do through currency he calls the non-monetary solution "human economy" (the other one must be inhuman, right?). Similarly he perverts the concept of familiar/church/friends sharing which I haven't heard any free market/capitalist people deny (on the contrary they seem to more often have healthier family & social relationships while their opponents like Marx have broken families, suicidal children and other tragedies), aaa, where was I? yes, he perverts these positive relationships by calling them "comunistic", thereby bringing their positive aura onto a social/political system that has caused millions of deaths and huge suffering... I find such trickery disloyal
- from the title and description I had assumed the book would be largely filled with historical data, but mostly i had to endure philosophical bla-bla-bla and a particularly non-objective style of exposition
- i call this a dangerous book because I know there are a lot of people out there with soft logic abilities, and less historical knowledge or analytic abilities, and they might be tricked by the book, so i would recommend the book only if you've read at least another 5 historical and economics books with a more analytic lean, be it from the ruthless logic of Rothbard & Mises or the historical facts of people such as Sowell
- I liken the authors style and method to Marx because like him his goal is to attack capitalism (did you know that not capitalists but Marx coined the term with the purpose of attack?), and they are both very smart people with high entertainment value/intelectual writing and both spend a lot of time attacking something while then being unsurprisingly blank at proposing anything better in a consequent matter so that others can poke holes at their position too, instead they are positionless and thus can't be attacked themselves. Also the author seems very tricky in his attacks... does he mean to attack the system whereby people save first and then use those savings? does he propose that debt spending is better? does he think that nothing can/should be quantized and we should all remain in a primitive society style (yes, he searches a lot in history and present for obscure examples of tribes to argue his points, but doesn't seem to notice that maybe there's a reason those were left behind). Instead he seems to define capitalism as everything he can cherry pick through history and present day that is bad, which of course makes it very easy to argue against them.
There are howerever good things in the book too:
+ while IMHO setting up straw many arguments and guilty parties he does seem to see some big problems, he sees how the system today will probably go through a historically recurrent reset of debt and maybe complexity
+ he dares to talk about subjects such as the American empire, the support it gets from countries with troops stationed in their territories, and such things
+ while with some biases he does bring forth very interesting historical data about debt & credit based system in the past
+ if you have the right historical and economics background, particularly if you are versed in hard money ways of thinking it may provide some interesting alternative points of view which should improve your perspective as to possibilities of not just where we have been but where we might be going
Overall I'd say it was a useful addition to my mental library, but one filled with many logical, moral and ideological traps, which is why I wouldn't advise it to many people as I find the author to be brilliantly smart and subtle, and some of his propositions are expressed in such ways that few people will be able to uncover them, let alone respond and fight them.
PS: thanks for reading my humble thoughts. They are of course just my very own subjective, fallible and (with more books) evolving perspective and should not be taken too seriously. I started writing them down to remind myself of past books before I completely forget them (as I often did)... but if in the process they should be of interest or even use to anybody else I can only say I'm honored & happy to be of some humble service.
Writing these things down ends up adding up to surprisingly long times, which is why I try to be brief. If in doing so I upset anybody by not doing the customary social dance of words please understand and forgive me.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Debt.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
March 11, 2013
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 130 (130 new)
>>>" i call this a dangerous book because I know there are a lot of people out there with soft logic abilities, and less historical knowledge or analytic abilities, and they might be tricked by the book, "My apologies but this is far too close to the paranoiac sentiments of a Spanish Inquisitor.
There is a distinct religious Manicheanism, moral panic and bourgeois castration anxiety which informs the psyche of far too many right-wing "libertarians".
Danielnylinnilsson wrote: "I am trying to read up on economical issues, so please give me some ideas of what I could read that would counter Graebers arguments."Depends on what you mean by economics, I can understand the disdain of most people towards the field as unfortunately it has been taken over by political forces and used to justify their means so I would say at least half, probably more of the books fall into that (to me) bad category. That being said what I understand by economics is simply trying to understand the logic behind the behavior of (usually groups of) people in terms of incentives and reactions. For me a good book that introduced me to this line of logical analysis was Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. However if you are more inclined into the historical side than the theoretical analysis size I'm currently going through the same author's trilogy Migrations & Cultures, Conquests & Cultures and Race and Culture which has a lot more historical data. I think the whole term economics can be very general and confusing, relating to many fields dranding from economies/states/wealth to the incentives of political structures and individual people behavior. I find people in general fascinating, and this field is to me one of the best ones to find out their true thoughts/actions (on a group/societal level). People often say one thing but with their actions/pocket vote in another way, and i believe in the end this says more about them and is more honest. Other writers in areas of economics that I found I learned a lot from and appreciated their clarity of logic Milton Friedman (not necessarely his policy books, but rather his analysis ones/sections), I found his approach a search for efficiency mixed with a desire to improve, Ludwing von Mises, his writing was incredibly dry but also shockingly logical (though a bit hard to follow for me as I needed more history and examples) or the book For a New Liberty Book by Murray Rothbard made me think of him as putting as economics on a second place to the morality of freedom but still using reason and research. Other than that I find very interesting a wide variety of applied economics type books ranging from Freakonomics to The undercover economist or books on behaviroal economics trying to apply incentive studies to everyday people behaviors.
rivelle: I did not mean to upset you with my words, when I posted them i did it mostly as a memory to myself so i don't forget my impressions after finishing the book, so they were never meant to stand in a trial, just as my quick thoughts. To answer you directly though: I believe you misinterpreted my statement: I would not forbid anybody to read the book, if I wanted to I would not have even mentioned it, I just said I wouldn't intentionally promote it as I think it could spread more of the kinds of beliefs which I believe have hurt more than enough people through history. I see this kind of thinking though everywhere, every time I turn on the tv in particular, so I know nothing has or will change. Still, I like people a lot and I wish less of them would suffer needlessly. As far as I've seen from my humble studies of history it seems to me that more people got hurt/suffered/died because of well meaning and intending ideologies than those because of evil meaning people. That makes me sad. I can only hope that enough people will be allowed enough freedom to choose what is really best for them and not what other (possibly well meaning) people think should be best for them.
well, i let this get the best of me and spent too much writing again... i just want to mention for the record, my reviews of my books are really not meant as debates I'm just quickly putting down my thoughts on a book before i forget my impressions of it, so that maybe one day later i may read them and remember the book. They're often full of grammatical and even possibly research failures (hopefully i will correct them as I read more books and learn more about the world)... but that's okay, because they're just meant as they are, as quick thoughts. :P
Danielnylinnilsson wrote: "Regarding communism - it is of course a highly politicized word, but when it is not capitalized it does not refer to the political system (...)"i don't think the concept can be like the word separated so clearly and relied upon the definition of a certain dictionary. In practice the idea of comunizing goods even if everybody might agree to it in theory in practice many/most people trust their own management of goods better than a third party doing it in their name, so it seems to me that over a period past possibly the first honeymoon year one does require a violent enforcing of it. I remember my grandfather's village in communist Romanian times when people would go out at night to steal grass from their own land. The problem with such beautiful sounding ideologies is in my opinion that everybody agrees to it assuming the implementation reflects their own goals and values, but in practice it turns out different people have different values and goals and ideas how to best achieve them and in the end there still requires a third party who will take decisions if the people don't, and that third party is not a divine machine but another human with other ideas and goals. That's why i believe one can't separate such ideas from the necessary need for their implementation and the impossibility of that. Some things repeat in the history of mankind and always play out very similarly for a reason, i believe.
Thank you for thoughtful reply.Time and space are limited here but a couple of quick points.
1/David Graeber is *not* a communist but an anarchist, possibly like Chomsky. He is certainly highly critical of Capitalism, especially as practiced *in the real world*. In contradistinction to the “theory� that we are constantly force-fed as propaganda.
2/ Capitalism is an unstable and violent system which alongside the benefits it has delivered to certain peoples of certain groups is also responsible for a great deal of suffering, injustice and crimes against humanity.
I’ll just quickly point you towards Immanuel Wallerstein and his school of World Systems Analysis.
He has a written a lot on what he calls the “minuet� of the Cold War and how it should be properly understood.
For a short sample and summary see his e.g. his essay “The Eagle has Crashed Landed� which can be found here:
3/ Similarly World Systems Analysis provides a framework in which the quite artificial labels of “communist� or “capitalist� as they apply to the nation states can be properly understood. I.e. from the perspective of the *global* world perspective. From this viewpoint, the various nations of the former Eastern Bloc were “state-capitalist�. Much like China was, is and in the modern always was “authoritarian capitalist�.
4/ If you want a small sample of where the “World Left� is (or at least in my view should) be today then see for example the various groups and movements associated with the World Social Forum.
thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I respect that. If by capitalism one understand the world we have today, of course I agree there are many problems with it. And I really like people forming voluntary associations for all the values they have. I think that's the stuff of great societies. Where I see a problem is where/if the freedom of choice of the individual is taken away because some council/government/"group of smarter people than him" have somewhere remotely to him decided that they shall do some things with which he might not even agree... in short any time these voluntary associations then propose to use the violent assets of the state, such as say tax money. People like to believe we have left slavery behind for centuries, but when men in some western countries work the equivalent of like from january to july-august just to pay their taxes so that well meaning people above can follow their values I see a moral problem. Just my 2 cents. Maybe people might think I'm naive but i believe when people want more nature or world or other stuff they reflect that in their choices and things they're willing to pay for... and that any price one has to be forced to pay through some violent force is not an honest valuation of that object/product/situation. I believe my position isn't just optimism based on my historical research, as it seems to me that mostly free worlds were also prosperous and happy worlds. To be honest I actually see a hope for the convergence of what may seem like conflicting movmeents, like the people today who want a voluntaristic/anarchocapitalistic society with a focus on freedom and letting businesses/banks/groups/people fail and succeed based on their merits and the anti-capitalistic/proenvironment/human care groups. In my opinion these groups sometimes in history actually unite to form the best of both worlds (initial american colonists come to mind as people who wanted to get away from the foolishness of states in europe being on boht sides of the fence). I also believe like you we are swimming in a world of propaganda, yet I'm happy that now people are bombarded with so much propaganda from all sides that they might actually have enough info to mix the messages and just extract the realities.
You wrote >>>"the convergence of what may seem like conflicting movmeents, like the people today who want a voluntaristic/anarchocapitalistic society with a focus on freedom and letting businesses/banks/groups/people fail and succeed based on their merits and the anti-capitalistic/proenvironment/human care groups."I'm very glad you said that. And I quite agree.
You're actually very close to Noam Chomsky and the sort of prescriptive and programmatic statements that he has made in various places in his writings.
Again, I contend that you ought to (re)read David Graeber and his sometime co-author James C. Scott as Chomskyite anarchists.
For what it's worth - and it's actually quite significant - "Foreign Policy Magazine" listed Graeber amongst its "Top 100 Global Thinkers"
The only point where I differ from what you have written above is the definition, analysis and history of "Capitalism". Here I follow Immanuel Wallerstein.
See also e.g. Immanuel Wallerstein's "Utopistics: Or Historical Choices of the Twenty-First Century" for a short summary of the reason that he advances for believing that we currently living through the *terminal* historical crisis of Capitalism.
And hence I think that the sort of future "world" which quite a number of people like to see come about is in reality *post-capitalist*.
Definitional terms should naturally be as precise as possible. On this particular point of how the word "capitalist" is used - i.e. very loosely and in a slipshod and basically meaningless manner - I'm not too fussed if things on the ground are actually improved and moving in a promising direction.
And then the Owl of Minerva can be let fly at dusk.
thank you very much for those great links. Seems like a very interesting perspective that I can't wait to look into. I'm ordering a Wallerstein book right away. It's always great to form one's picture from as many perspectives as possible and he seems to be interested in the kinds of things I also want to find out about: the great mystery and fascination to me is how people act and group and which behaviours have through history lead to wellbeing and freedom and which to failures and collapse (I'd love another book in the vein of The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph A. Tainter. Thank you for the pointers in interesting directions!
You’re very welcome and it’s nice to meet you.On the further question of debt have you heard of Steve Keen?
Thank you for the Joseph Tainter reference. Happily I was on the way to the library tomorrow anyway and now will have yet another book to lug home!
On that particular notion of “complexity� and the science of complexity, you’ll find much about that in Immanuel Wallerstein’s other more theoretical and methodological work as well.
He draws upon the work of Ilya Prigogine. And then attempts to show the implications for the social sciences and for political theory and praxis more generally.
These are in Immanuel Wallerstein’s
“The Uncertainties of Knowledge�
“Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth-Century Paradigms�
“The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century�
thank you for the book recommendations! I am aware of Steve Keen's work and I find his perspective also very interesting. I would love to learn more about the history of currencies and ruler debts. I was hoping This Time by Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart would be bigger and with more historical examples and details. I would expect currencies, their births and circumstances of their debts might reveal much more truths about the past than histories about kings and wars, just like today many people in powers's words say on thing, either foolish or just untrue things, but their finances tell a different story.
You'll also find much of interest in this:David Hackett Fischer "The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History"
/book/show/3...
Ilya Prigogine's books that are written for a general non-specialist audience are:
"The End of Certainty"
"Order out of Chaos"
"Is Future Given"
Not a fan at all of Rogoff and Reinhart, I'm afraid. They were partially responsible for the "Austerity" policies of the Cameron government which has wrecked havoc in the UK.
Conventional wisdom on fiscal spending was that it should be counter-cyclical.
Rogoff and Reinhart thought that they had uncovered evidence and analysis to debunk this. All very well in an economics seminar, but they ended f**king a lot of real people's lives.
And apart from anything else the policy paper based on their book contained serious errors.
do you then believe governments should borrow and spend to avoid austerity?
Well, it worked here in Australia. The Government Keynesian stimulus worked here. We avoided economic recession during the Global Financial Crisis. And our current debt levels as percentage of GDP are low compared to other OECD nations. And we maintained our AAA credit rating.But of course that's Australia. And our particular set of circumstances. We have a mining industry that forms a large sector of the economy and strong demand from China. (Demand from China and the Chinese economy in general is slowing down and so we better adjust, btw.)
Generally speaking, Economics suffers from quasi-Platonic pretensions. And there is a preference for "one size fits all" prescriptions.
My honest answer with regards the *general* principle of "counter-cyclical spending" is that "I don't know".
It most certainly is not and can not be anything resembling a scientific law.
My understanding with regards the UK were that their debt levels were ok. And in any case, the Global Financial Crisis was the *worst* time to cut public spending at the same time that private investment and confidence was also low. That just means a general lowering of all economic activity in general.
I would be very interested to hear your perspective from Germany and the EU. With regards Greece, Spain, Italy etc.
my perspective is that from what i've seen historically generally any political promise of a gvt borrowing now with the promise to save later is a self indulgent lie of the type "I'll do my homework next week", repeated next week, until it all gets undelayable, when, based on history and the lack of needed cuts I expect they'll just do another debt cancelation like they've always done (inflation + reneging on promises + increased taxes). With regards to different EU countries while I think they'll all totally steal the shirts off their citizens I think EU is relatively okay positioned for the future in the sense because it has a kind of natural federalism like the US used to have a few centuries ago, and with it's currency being relatively young they might still try a bit harder to keep it's illusion. As for Germany in particular I see a lot of socialism here, both in the press and in the laws, a lot of regulation and progressive taxation, which combined with the usual pitfalls of the problem of democracy (2 wolves & a sheep voting democratically what's for lunch) and the political tendencies to spend more and more for different interest groups I expect it to stagnate on the long term... with stagnation in a moving world actually meaning very slow and comfortable decay. The hope I see for EU is that as the conflict between US and BRICKS grows I see a chance that at some point they'll stop being a puppet and to the surprise of the media/population might take sides and strenghten contacts with the growing countries. The first steps in this process I see might have already started over here in the media with a historically new direction of opposition to the US in subjects around the surveillance scandal. One particularly interesting feeling I get sometimes is that they often talk the wrong things, think the wrong things, but yet in some sistemic ways sometimes even do the right preparations for the transition.
I'm very curious about your perspective about the next decades in Australia. Me & my wife are considering it as a possible future place to move to if things continue to stagnate over here.
You wrote >>>"I see a chance that at some point they'll stop being a puppet and to the surprise of the media/population might take sides and strengthen contacts with the growing countries. The first steps in this process I see might have already started over here in the media with a historically new direction of opposition to the US in subjects around the surveillance scandal. "I agree. This is is a very hopeful development if it
occurs.
You wrote >>>"I'm very curious about your perspective about the next decades in Australia."
Here I'll refer you once again to Immanuel Wallerstein and his thesis that we currently living through the terminal historical crisis of the 500 year old Capitalist World-System.
Add to that such things as Climate Change - Germany has made much more impressive progress on renewable energy than Australia - and Peak Oil and we have a concatenation of asymptotes that means "places of refuge" will not necessarily be anywhere.
In Australia the downside of the mining boom is that such a heavy reliance on that one export sector has meant a higher Australian dollar. This has hollowed out our manufacturing sector.
This was *supposed* to be fixed by a very good new tax regime. But the politics were horrific and the good guys lost. We have a number of very nasty oligarchs here. The infamous Rupert Murdoch. And Mining magnates Gina Rinehart, Andrew Forrest, Clive Palmer. They colluded to destroy the new tax regime.
This was a very elegant Mineral Resources Rent Tax. Revenue raised from this tax was then supposed to provide tax breaks - or even possibly subsidies in some cases � to the manufacturing sector.
So that's one structural weakness. Though the politics may change and we could end up with something close to original model. We ended with a watered down model which didn't do the job at all. And now the newly elected LNP want to repeal even that.
However they're currently suffering in the polls and so there's still some hope.
Renewable energy is another possibility for the future Australian economy. No shortage of sun, wind, hydro capable rivers and even uranium here. No nuclear facilities at all however.
Again the politics around action on Climate Change and transition to renewables has been horrific. But leaving that to one side and assuming the good guys don't lose again, Australia could go there.
Then there's the talk of an Australian "high tech" sector. We have to start that through initially buying a lot patents and tech etc first.
Primary Industries have always been pretty good here. Exports are generally good. And we can feed and clothe ourselves.
And so I would say that the Australian economy is currently in transition but the prospects are promising *if* the politics are done right. But as has occurred almost everywhere the oligarchical right wing have waged their ruthless class war and so the outcome of those battles are always uncertain.
The massive countervailing force which will affect the Capitalist world economy as a whole
though is the Wallerstein point about the terminus of Capitalism.
Thank you very much for your thoughts! It was great to read your perspective on the future of Australia.Personally I'm a bit more skeptical about the whole earth is warming being bad thing, and the renewable movement might have been started strong here in Germany but in fact that's one of the reasons I'm expecting stagnation here in Germany as the costs of this idealistic project weigh hard on the costs of energy which then weighs on everything. Time will tell...
Thank you both for the interesting debate and point of views. A veritable meal for thoughts.
Just a quick note on Graeber's use of the phrase "human economy" because it wasn't really mentioned in this thread after your initial comment... Graeber specifically says that he does not mean "humane economy", rather just that humans - or some direct aspect of the human experience, like honor or obligation - is the basis of the economy, rather than an abstract currency or money.
your review is spot on. stopped reading the book after I realized it had an agenda. it's tone was a bit "off". I'm not pro/anti capitalist...I was just looking for a informational book and this on was highly reviewed. but the author's "non-objective style of exposition" was really off putting, he'll make some glittering conclusion with out explain how its supported, then move on quickly. he did that numerous times, i said "nope"! and quit the book. Now i can't tell whether his points were right or wrong, I can just tell when I'm being sold. so yea, no thanks. good review!
thank you. Glad it helped. I particularly liked and could fully relate to your statement that it's hard to tell when somebody on that level is right or wrong, I often feel that way, so many fields, it's hard to be good even in one, so it's hard to be in others, yet even never knowing everything as part of the human condition i do sometimes get a strong sense of "this makes sense, as far as I get it" or "i may not be super able to put my finger on it, but the things i do get seems dubious" and trying to use the best of what I know of reason + history. For all I know history is a lie ... but I gotta do my best with what i've got.
+1 to everything you wrote, had the exact same impression of the book.
Guillermo Gruschka wrote: "+1 to everything you wrote, had the exact same impression of the book."thank you for taking the time to say so!
I've also had very similar thoughts when I read this book. Calling it dangerous is fitting. It's not sterile, but so misleading and dishonest that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without a solid background in history or economics.Also, what struck me was how "soft" his argumentation generally was. I don't think many readers could reproduce his argument, they would only remember that it sounded very good when they read it. At least I have a lot of trouble finding the smoking gun among the evidence he produced, or anything like it.
Alex wrote: "I've also had very similar thoughts when I read this book. Calling it dangerous is fitting. It's not sterile, but so misleading and dishonest that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without a solid ..."wonderfully formulated! Fully agree.
it's a shame because both the history is interesting and the subject matter is one I would SOOO wish for 5 books more on the topic and i think they'd just begin to cover the researchable history
Vapid review. Quite sure you did not actually read the book.
Why are you so sure? Because he does not share your opinion of the book, or is there some specific mistake in the review that you can only explain by him not having read the book at all? (As opposed to reading it, but forgetting about some important passage, because this book is a good 500 pages and extremely broad in scope?)
Reason #1: the review asserts that Graeber� “style and method� are like Marx. They are not. And, incidentally, “void� has no books by Marx in his read list. He makes that reference only to color Graeber as a socialist, which he may very well be, but Graeber’s intent is to tell the history of money, which represents debt. He does this quite well. Reason #2: the review was clearly written by someone that was “confused� by the ideas presented in the book, because they run counter to mainstream econ. Anyone that reads beyond the first 60 pages or so should not be confused. Competing theories are laid out quite clearly and thoroughly.
On the points mentioned in the review, Marx' and Graebers styles and methodologies are indeed similar. Granted, Graeber is not half as bad as Marx, but considering how bad Marx is, that is not a great achievement. Like Marx, Graeber sets himself up to be as hard to attack as possible. He offers thousands of pieces of historical evidence, and only very few are conclusive, none of those on his central points. What, exactly, is his methodology? I could ask the same of Marx. Marx knows where he wants to go but he does not have a transparent and clear methodology. The first principles of his system of economics quite simply come out of nowhere. He took the labor theory of value from Adam Smith, who in turn took it from nowhere. Like Marx, Graeber talks a lot, but leaves his central premises unattended. I could dismiss almost the entire book out of hand because he tried to refute the Mengerian theory of the origins of money, one backed with an a priori methodology, by throwing the historical record on it. Likewise with other a priori theories. Graeber simply misses the point, but talks on and on. If anything confused me, it was this. I had no idea about the relevance of any particular passage. They were all rather weak evidence for whatever he was trying to prove. The one potential smoking gun he found turned out to be inconclusive on further inspection by Robert Murphy.
What this book ultimately amounts to is an interesting collection of anecdotes. It's really not a work of genius, and not because Graeber is ignorant or stupid. He had the potential to become a genius and he blew it.
Mark wrote: "Vapid review. Quite sure you did not actually read the book."well, you got me. I didn't "read" it, i listened to it :)) there, happy now?
Fun aside though, like Alex was nice enough to mention (thank you!) yeah, I might've missed some points, that's to be expected. My review was neither a scholarly work or an academic rebuke, it's just the quick notes of a man who tried to write down some quick impressions of a book after finishing it so I don't soon forget everything after a few months/years.
Mark wrote: "Graeber’s intent is to tell the history of money, which represents debt. "maybe that wasn't clear but in fact this interesting point that he makes is what i found to be possibly the most redeeming aspect of the book. I"m not saying I 100% agree but i think there's a lot of often missed truth in that statement.
Mark wrote: "And, incidentally, “void� has no books by Marx in his read list."
Touche! How can i not respect that point? due diligence and all that. You are correct. I never actually finished a book by Marx... then again i also have never finished "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, and you might be surprised I also dare to have some opinions on that period book also. How is that, you may wonder? Well, there's so many other modern people deriving from Marx and quoting and passages and discussions and history and economic history and all that that I never felt the need to actually finish a Marx book.
Quite contrary to your baseless accusation, the issue is exactly that my review books include only books I've actually finished, as opposed to those i got a few chapters in or jumped through and concluded they're not worth my time. I currently feel Marx is not worth my time. I already am exposed way too much to the at least updated & history-adjusted logical mistakes of his modern day followers, which (though I might disagree) make way more better arguments that aren't quite so outdated. That's way more fun and interesting as it actually gets me to question stuff. Similarly to how you didn't find in there Marx's "Das Kapital" you probably noticed you didn't find in there Piketty's "Capital" book (would i be wrong to guess you similarly admire?). That's not for lack of trying though. Bought the book, have it, got a few chapters in... and i just couldn't stand it anymore. So much fishy twisty logic.. there's only so much I can take of that at a time. I'm VERY interested in compelling world view arguments, in interesting points, and explanatory views of the world, but I don't have time or interest to waste too much time with ones which go off the track relatively quickly as I find it would be an irrational spending of my time. Debating and being able to say "I finished that" is not as a compelling a reason for me to stick with a book as "it makes a good solid point". Of the many Marxist modern spinoff books I encounter you would be right to conclude that Graeber I found to be much more interesting than most... because, as you might infer from the above: i did find his points somewhat interesting and plausible in some ways, or at least the historical data was nice and it had a nice contrary view.
Alex wrote: " Like Marx, Graeber sets himself up to be as hard to attack as possible. He offers thousands of pieces of historical evidence, and only very few are conclusive, none of those on his central points. What, exactly, is his methodology? I could ask the same of Marx. Marx knows where he wants to go but he does not have a transparent and clear methodology. The first principles of his system of economics quite simply come out of nowhere. He took the labor theory of value from Adam Smith, who in turn took it from nowhere... [...]Like Marx, Graeber talks a lot, but leaves his central premises unattended."
thank you very very much for your fantastic response, I found it just fabulous!
Great point about the methodology and loved the labor theory of value mentioned. Bonus admiration points from me for the Mengerian mention.
Many years ago I listened to the book "Human Action" by Mises and i remember (i think it was that one) being more than a little against what i felt was a stubbornness to say that everything can be deduced logically and not historically, and that without a logical framework you can take historical data to mean anything. Yet the more years go by and see more and more modern day marxist points of view I think back to that nice walk on the river's edge (here: ) it keeps hitting me that that might've been a good point, much more so than I initially thought: without some logical framework by which to perceive historical events and to make a cohesive narative out of them different people can take the same data and come to radically different conclusions. Thus, as much as i love data, I end up endlessly searching for good logic and reasoning because otherwise I keep seeing interpretation of the type:
"lifelong sports man starts taking drugs and in the first year he's healthier than most people, thus people conclude drugs are good for their health" or the reverse "lifelong addict starts eating eating / living healthy" and people conclude that's why he's having some issues.
Thank you very much Alex for coming to my defense with reasoning I can admire. Very much appreciated!
You write: "the author uses a large amount of mixed and confusing philosophical debate to confuse, and imposes language with moral undertones to push his arguments"I am currently finishing up Chapter 1 and that was the first thing I noticed. This is a common tactic. You say one true thing, then a plausible thing that follows logically, and then you ram through your opinion as if it naturally follows from the other two statements. Thus opinion is given the weight of fact and logic. In fact, the opinion may be valid, but it is a tactic being used to persuade. It is not a list of facts or logic alone. The Reader must be aware whether one agrees with the author or not.
Alex wrote: "You write: "the author uses a large amount of mixed and confusing philosophical debate to confuse, and imposes language with moral undertones to push his arguments"I am currently finishing up Cha..."
indeed. At the very least it is important for the reader to notice this technique.
Why don't you point out some examples of things he got wrong, or explain some biases that he suffers from? I mean, if he's been badly programmed, as you say, then it would be a good deed to help him overcome this.
Good review, summarises my sentiments as well!
Even if the end result is not something everyone agrees with, the mere subversive act of trying to disprove the myth of the jump from barter to money is valuable by itself.What would be the right answer to this? IMO, a point by point refutation of any mistakes found in the book would not be that right answer. I would be too noisy to be of any help.
The right answer is to publish a more complete and unbiased history of money, debt and credit, filling any missing gaps in this book. And I would enjoy reading this history.
"THE RUTHLESS LOGIC OF ROTHBARD AND MISES"L M A O
Hunter wrote: ""THE RUTHLESS LOGIC OF ROTHBARD AND MISES"L M A O"
You tried to think of something worthwhile to say, and this is what you came up with?
Nicolay77 wrote: "Even if the end result is not something everyone agrees with, the mere subversive act of trying to disprove the myth of the jump from barter to money is valuable by itself.What would be the right..."
If you want the work of a more mainstream economist, Graeber's book can be read alongside Steve Keen who also writes on the crippling effects of debt. And proposes a modern form of debt jubilee.
Most of the reviews here seem strangely abstracted and scholastic. Debt peonage is major source of economic suffocation and human suffering in the modern world.
Graeber's fault is possibly that he assumes his readers will share his concerns about the ill effects debt and to regard these concerns as more or less commonsensical. Which they probably would be to people reading his book in parts of the world ravaged by IMF imposed austerity and debt e.g Argentina.
Nicolay77 wrote: "Even if the end result is not something everyone agrees with, the mere subversive act of trying to disprove the myth of the jump from barter to money is valuable by itself.What would be the right answer to this? IMO, a point by point refutation of any mistakes found in the book would not be that right answer. I would be too noisy to be of any help.
The right answer is to publish a more complete and unbiased history of money, debt and credit, filling any missing gaps in this book. And I would enjoy reading this history. "
very well said! I'd love to read that also, particularly if it dug deep into the debts of states in the past 3000 years, intended and unintended effects.
Void wrote: "Nicolay77 wrote: "Even if the end result is not something everyone agrees with, the mere subversive act of trying to disprove the myth of the jump from barter to money is valuable by itself.What w..."
How can any book of any interest be "unbiased"? And why is "less (explicitly) biased" necessarily a virtue as opposed to a deceitful slight of hand?
Debt is a major contemporary issue which is necessarily highly political. Just ask people thrown out of their homes onto the street by the banks post Global Financial Crisis 2008. Graeber's virtue is precisely that he is an engaged intellectual. (Unlike e.g Musil's character of Ulrich and the high society of Kakania.)
There are parts of the world where it would seem people are possessed of a far greater and deeper historical memory than is typical of the contemporary West. Which is not really a surprise given the absurd and dangerous pseudo-Platonic pretensions of neo-liberalist/neo-classical economics to be apolitical and ahistorical. There is void like a weeping wound in modern capitalist academic Economics depts which is the absence of economic history as a taught subject.
This is the public service page for citizens of India who require Legal Aid
"The roots of the present day human institutions lie deeply buried in the past. The same is true of a country’s law and legal institutions. The legal system of a country at a given time is not the creation of one man or of one day...
Recovery of Debts in Ancient India"
There's more historical education and historical consciousness on one Indian public service page than thousands of economics graduates would have gotten in years of study.
I found the page linked to above via google-searching about a book cited in Graeber's bibliography:
Chatterjee - "The Law of Debt in Ancient India"
Graeber's bibliography would seem a good place to start to find what you are looking for.
Amongst the works cited are the classics of the economic history and political economy:
Fernand Braudel;
Immanuel Wallerstein
Karl Polyani
> Debt is a major contemporary issue which is necessarily highly political.For some people it is. In my particular case the more ancient the history, the more I enjoy reading about it.
Current debt has been discussed to death in many other places.
But I see your point and I totally agree with you.
"Soft logic abilities"? Okay smarty-pants
"'The ruthless logic of Rothbard & Mises or the historical facts of people such as Sowell" Bwahahahaha, oh maan
Kirill wrote: ""'The ruthless logic of Rothbard & Mises or the historical facts of people such as Sowell" Bwahahahaha, oh maan"Do you have an argument or something?
No, except that bringing up Sowell and von Mises as possessing some kind of exceptional "logic and fact" is a powerful dumb-guy manoeuvre.
Kirill wrote: "No, except that bringing up Sowell and von Mises as possessing some kind of exceptional "logic and fact" is a powerful dumb-guy manoeuvre."The way he worded it was tacky (albeit charming, in my opinion), but it wasn't wrong. In my experience, libertarians are usually logically stringent and care about facts, historical or otherwise. They do sometimes fall into clichés, and they can be reductionist (they often are, at least to some extent), but they aren't whack. They mind their methodologies very much, more than other authors tend to do. After all, the first 300 or 400 pages of Human Action are nothing but methodology.
If you want to press charges against libertarianism, charge them with being reductionist. Not that they are worse in this regard than other contemporary thinkers, few of whom have as rich a worldview as, say, the Church Fathers.
MilagroB wrote: "Thank you, Void. I'm trying to get the author or the publisher to send me a free copy as I cannot pay. So far, I don't detect any human co-operation."I seem to recall a book entitled "If You See This Book, RIP IT OFF!!" I don't think it sold many copies. :-)
I don't really understand what you mean by "confusing philosophical debate", and the lack of historical data. There is plenty of data in there - how the slave trade worked, how coinage came into being etc. Moreover I can see that Graeber makes use of convincing historical research to support his statements.
Regarding communism - it is of course a highly politicized word, but when it is not capitalized it does not refer to the political system () I don't think that Graebers use of the word is very controversial, and in deed it is difficult to find another term that describes the kind of exchange of goods and services that goes on for example in a family, or in an office where anyone can take as much coffee as they need from the coffee machine without anyone counting.
The way I read Graeber, the point is not that capitalism is inhuman - but that he highlights what is inhuman in the system. "Human economy" is maybe an unfortunate term, but what would you suggest? Honor economy maybe, but wouldn't that imply that the market is dishonourable? Which is in deed the opinion about markets in these kind of economies.
I think it is a very different kind of book that Marx works, Marx was more of an economist than an anthropologists, and he more than anyone stands for the kind of belief in progress that Graeber mocks in this book.
I am trying to read up on economical issues, so please give me some ideas of what I could read that would counter Graebers arguments.
Greetings
/Daniel