[thundergolfer]

> not an economist, though he has written inexplicably popular books on economic topics that betray his lack of understanding of economics.

"Debt" I think shows a deep understanding of the relationships economics has with history, philosophy, and society. Graeber knows he's not an economist but he's got a point to make and he's not shy about making it even though it says less than flattering things about some aspects of economics.

You're link is broken for me btw.

[barry-cotter]

What point is Graeber trying to make in Debt? It seems to be “capitalism bad” but that may be too kind to the book’s coherence.

On Bullshit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt...

> Now, this may sound a little silly - if someone wrote a book called "Metal: The First 5,000 Years," and then filled that book with stories of war and bloodshed, never failing to remind us after each anecdote that metal was involved in some way, we might be left scratching our heads as to why the author was so fixated on metal instead of on war itself. And in fact, that is indeed how I felt for much of the time I was reading Graeber's book. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that Graeber continually talks around the idea of debt in other ways, mentioning debt crises (without reflecting deeply on why these happen), the periodic use and disuse of coinage (which apparently is just as bad as debt in terms of enabling the capitalism monster), and any other phenomenon related to debt, without weaving these observations into a coherent whole.

> In other words, I am now angry at myself for paraphrasing the book, and trying to put theses into Graeber's mouth, because this is such a rambling, confused, scattershot book that I am doing you a disservice by making it seem more coherent than it really is.

> The problem of extreme disorganization is dramatically worsened by the way that Graeber skips merrily back and forth from things he appears to know quite a lot about to things he obviously knows nothing about. One sentence he'll be talking about blood debts and "human economies" in African tribes (cool!), and the next he'll be telling us that Apple Computer was started by dropouts from IBM (false!). There are a number of glaring instances of this. The worst is not when Graeber delivers incorrect facts (who cares where Apple's founders had worked?), it's when he uncritically and blithely makes assertions that one could only accept if one has extremely strong leftist mood affiliation

[thundergolfer]

> It seems to be “capitalism bad” but that may be too kind to the book’s coherence.

have you read the book? The book is an exploration, and an interrogation, with so much to learn from that to say that about it seems pretty philistinic.

Maybe you were just summing up the review you linked from Noah Smith. I read most of it, it's a bit meh but Noah doesn't really seem to be trying too much in it. This though: "leftist mood affiliation". That's cheap 'preaching to the choir' language.

If you have a link to a more serious review I'd genuinely like to read it.

[shantly]

Shit, I remember most of the "bad stuff" in Debt predating capitalism by somewhere between centuries and millennia. Seems like a weird way to write it if its Secret Purpose was to be a long-winded hit piece on capitalism.