It wasn't an insult, it was a critique. Any economy built on promises that can be thrown out at will is just a house of cards. Where do you even start with that? That's just one thing, the article is filled with half thought out premises that when taken to their conclusion fall apart. In reality it is the author making serious accusations that require evidence, not my critique.
I can't help you if you don't know where to start to support your own claims but rhetorical hand-waving probably isn't it. That you disagree with Graeber isn't really indicative that he fundamentally misunderstand finance though. He's kind of a well-received[1] expert on the subject, even according to the Financial Times[2].
My point was is the author didn't even provide any detail on where his claims (not mine) would lead or how they would work. Why does the burden keep being put on me to disprove his claims instead of him being required to prove that they do work?
I'm asking you why you think what you do. He communicated to me why he thinks the way he does and I have no questions about that. I think the essay was clear enough for what it was and didn't think it betrayed any fundamental misunderstanding of finance.
I think what he said is that things aren't working for many, this crisis showed that to everyone and we should therefore keep this in mind and do something about it. The part I liked in particular was the implication that we should keep in mind that the economy exists primarily to satisfy our needs and not the other way around.
I don't see anything there that suggests he misunderstands finance, especially with a reputation for the opposite, or that he doesn't get the philosophy of contract law (I think that's what you're hinting at), so that's why I asked.