[knowledge-clay]

> their need to advertise admissions, how they talk to the media and university rating services, their relations with China, the student lawsuits they face, their need to manage relations with Oxford the political unit

This all sounds to me like DG's definition of 'bullshit'. David Graeber is an anthropologist, ie, he takes a wide view of humanity: many societies, including societies not that alien to us, manage to function without this kind of work. Why is it suddenly indispensable? It is not a business advice book about running an individual institution, it is a wider social critique about how we have set up our society and economy.

> let him spend a year managing a mid-size organization, say 60-80 employees,

Graeber is an anarchist anthropologist and would critique the idea of a top-down capitalist firm itself (ie, the deeper question: why do we insist on structuring labor this way?). He is not telling anyone the best way to run it.

[dopidopHN]

Absolutely. Thanks for being elaborate.

I try to get to this point talking about insurance specialist working in the medical field in the US. Those jobs are vastly more present in the US than in other places that provide adéquat level of care and also have a concept of healtcare.

Going to the ER you sign a lot of paperwork thougt your admission.

I think of it as the eastern island moais.

Something society is choosing to do, and focus on. While effort could be directed elsewhere in order to enhance our futur.

[zeroonetwothree]

We don’t “insist” on structuring labour this way, it’s what arose as efficient from a market of voluntary private actors. Very “anarchist” in that sense. I would hope that Graeber is familiar with basic texts like Theory of the Firm.

[knowledge-clay]

> arose as efficient

Capitalism does not drive towards 'efficiency' in some general sense. It is full of dead weight, destruction, forced scarcity, waste, and bloat. This is not accidental, it is essential to how the system functions.