| 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. |
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.