|
|
|
|
|
|
by yarrel
2111 days ago
|
|
|
Graeber didn't defend the Apple statement, he said it was an editing error and that it was revised for later editions. Obsessing over that wasn't a good look for DeLong. It isn't for his alts, his stans, or whatever you are. That Crooked Timbre post is not very good. It reflects much worse on the author than on its purported subject. |
|
|
Graeber defended the statement, but said it wasn't supposed to be Apple. Then he blamed a graduate student of Richard Wolff for the error. Then he settled on the editing error explanation.
I didn't pick the quote because it's an outlier, but because it's typical of the last chapter of Debt, and it's one that everyone understands. The whole chapter has been seriously criticized by economists in general (despite what he said in the link above about the book not being criticized except by DeLong). The other examples require specialized knowledge, but that one doesn't. DeLong tweeted out other examples, one-by-one, which is weird, but I think it's weird in general to use Twitter for arguments.
How does the post reflect worse on the author? If you read Graeber's reply here (https://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/02/seminar-on-debt-the-fir...) he accuses Henry Farrell of all kinds of unsavory behavior, in response to a mildly critical review (https://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/22/the-world-economy-is-no...). I read that online discussion when it happened, and I think most people were pretty sympathetic to Graeber, despite the Apple quote, until that response.
I am also not a Henry Farrell alt, in case you're wondering.