|
|
|
|
|
|
by weatherlight
964 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
> 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.