[LudwigNagasena]

None of that has much to do with modern economics. Just like criticising alchemy doesn’t make you a contributor to chemistry.

Buy MWG’s Microeconomic Theory and study it. What does it have to do with Adam Smith’s theories on barter or someone’s (whose?) theory on primordial debt?

[weatherlight]

False equivalence. The history of economics to economics is not analogous to alchemy and chemistry. You're creating a straw man.

As per the myth every student of economics learns, that money grows out of barter. The idea is that monetary exchange solves the problem of the double coincidence of wants. Money makes trade much easier, so the story goes, and thus becomes a remarkable example of both human ingenuity and economic progress, isn't true. There's no evidence to support it. (support that money comes from barter, etc.)

Pick up any Economics textbook and look up the definition of "Traditional Economy," here, I'll do that for you.

"A traditional economic system is based on customs, history, and time-honored beliefs. A traditional economy is an economic system in which traditions, customs, and beliefs help shape the goods and services the economy produces, as well as the rules and manners of their distribution. Countries that use this type of economic system are often rural and farm-based. Also known as a subsistence economy, a traditional economy is defined by bartering"

We know that's not true. We know there's no evidence to support it.

So what does modern economic theory have to say about Traditional Economies? Not much apparently.

And that's the point!

Adding to this, I'm familiar with MWG's Microeconomic Theory, and while it's an excellent resource for understanding the mathematical models used in economics, (and by economics, I means systems where there's a market, money, all actors have perfect access to information, and there's property rights, etc), it doesn't offer much insight into the historical or anthropological questions that Graeber raises.

Both approaches have their value, but they serve different purposes and answer different questions. Learning or applying MWG in no way subtracts from Graeber's insights.

You can't apply or generally model a "traditional economy" using by applying MWG.

[LudwigNagasena]

> False equivalence. The history of economics to economics is not analogous to alchemy and chemistry. You're creating a straw man.

Smith, Mill and Ricardo are to economics what alchemy is to chemistry.

> As per the myth every student of economics learns, that money grows out of barter.

I wasn’t taught that. I was taught game theory, the Arrow-Debreu model and statistics.

> Pick up any Economics textbook and look up the definition of "Traditional Economy," here, I'll do that for you.

I don’t remember my textbooks saying much about traditional economies.

> "A traditional economic system is based on customs, history, and time-honored beliefs. A traditional economy is an economic system in which traditions, customs, and beliefs help shape the goods and services the economy produces, as well as the rules and manners of their distribution. Countries that use this type of economic system are often rural and farm-based. Also known as a subsistence economy, a traditional economy is defined by bartering"

I don’t know which textbook it is from. It also doesn’t go much into detail what it means.

> We know that's not true. We know there's no evidence to support it.

We know that metallic money were the norm during that times. That probably was the intuition and evidence behind the barter idea.

> So what does modern economic theory have to say about Traditional Economies?

> Not much apparently.

> And that's the point!

The point you were making initially is that modern economic theory makes false claims about barter. In fact, it doesn’t concern itself with it much outside of niche subfields. That makes Graeber simply wrong.

> it doesn't offer much insight into the historical or anthropological questions that Graeber raises.

Yes. And it doesn’t claim to. So what is the problem? How can it be wrong about things it doesn’t assert or imply?

> Learning or applying MWG in no way subtracts from Graeber's insights.

Yeah, but learning about modern economics from Graeber would make you confused and mistaken. He should have had the courtesy not to speak about things he didn’t know.

[weatherlight]

> I don’t remember my textbooks saying much about traditional economies.

thats the point.

> Yeah, but learning about modern economics from Graeber would make you confused and mistaken. He should have had the courtesy not to speak about things he didn’t know. (What is he speaking about that he doesn't know? also, did you even read the book? I'm getting the sense you didn't.)

He's not talking about modern economics, he's talking about the history of debt. This isn't hard to understand.

[LudwigNagasena]

> thats the point.

> He's not talking about modern economics

I wish it were the point. I would jump on that bandwagon for a ride with him. But the point is “contribution to questioning established economic assumptions”.

So we get weird statements like “the Myth of Barter cannot go away because it is central to the entire discourse of economics” that people parrot on the Internet after reading Graeber despite the fact that the pre-historical barter or its absence is inconsequential for modern theory.