because some of us aren’t stupid and realize money is a problem. You can’t just move to goddamn china. I swear you capitalists just like being ignorant or just in that mindset permanently
Greed is a problem. Debt is a problem. Money… is a tool. One that enables them, but one that is also somewhat useful. As long as it’s not an end in and of itself (which is, incidentally, exactly what capitalism is about, and exactly what cryptocurrencies are about, and that is exactly why I said cryptocurrencies are intrinsically capitalist).
Graeber’s analysis is fascinating. In small communities (say, a village) until, say ~18th century, money was simply not needed for day-to-day stuff. In fact, it was notoriously difficult to get coins in large enough quantity to go about regular daily business (buying food, selling your wares, etc).
So people did what they always do in small, closely-knit communities: operated on credit. And in many of those communities every now and then (maybe once per year or six months, depending on the community) there was a reckoning, where people’s credit was cleared against each other, and what was left to pay was paid in coin.
Actual money was used when a given transaction was happening with someone who was not from that community — a traveler, for example — as it was impossible to expect them to come to the reckoning or otherwise be around long enough to “balance the books” so to speak.
It’s all sorts of more nuanced, of course, and Graeber goes into all that nuance. Really good read, and very much on-topic.
Anyway, can’t wait for our friend to pontificate on how all of this is wrong and never happened and how Graeber — having done decades of scientific research both as an anthropologist and as an economist — has no clue what he’s talking about. 🙂
an economist who doesn’t even understand the difference between mainstream and austrian economists, how what was possible in the 18th century for tight-knit communities is not possible for modern day nation states and how even a left wing website admits that this is less an economics book and more propaganda
if you’re an economist I don’t think it’s that farfetched that you should know the beliefs of the most dominant school of economic thought especially considering your whole thing is criticizing them and any introductory material in the field would introduce you to their beliefs.
No. And yes people can just “get money to move” my god you are worse than a republican. China has very strict immigration, and even then won’t let foreigners into the CPC.
I can just join the communist parties here to annoy you and make your country the way it must be.
Go to China and live in the countryside to experience your egalitarian and efficient utopia
okay? that really isn’t the threat you think it is.
why is that socialists are always on the internet complaining about the horrible west instead of living in their utopia
because some of us aren’t stupid and realize money is a problem. You can’t just move to goddamn china. I swear you capitalists just like being ignorant or just in that mindset permanently
Greed is a problem. Debt is a problem. Money… is a tool. One that enables them, but one that is also somewhat useful. As long as it’s not an end in and of itself (which is, incidentally, exactly what capitalism is about, and exactly what cryptocurrencies are about, and that is exactly why I said cryptocurrencies are intrinsically capitalist).
Graeber’s analysis is fascinating. In small communities (say, a village) until, say ~18th century, money was simply not needed for day-to-day stuff. In fact, it was notoriously difficult to get coins in large enough quantity to go about regular daily business (buying food, selling your wares, etc).
So people did what they always do in small, closely-knit communities: operated on credit. And in many of those communities every now and then (maybe once per year or six months, depending on the community) there was a reckoning, where people’s credit was cleared against each other, and what was left to pay was paid in coin.
Actual money was used when a given transaction was happening with someone who was not from that community — a traveler, for example — as it was impossible to expect them to come to the reckoning or otherwise be around long enough to “balance the books” so to speak.
It’s all sorts of more nuanced, of course, and Graeber goes into all that nuance. Really good read, and very much on-topic.
Anyway, can’t wait for our friend to pontificate on how all of this is wrong and never happened and how Graeber — having done decades of scientific research both as an anthropologist and as an economist — has no clue what he’s talking about. 🙂
an economist who doesn’t even understand the difference between mainstream and austrian economists, how what was possible in the 18th century for tight-knit communities is not possible for modern day nation states and how even a left wing website admits that this is less an economics book and more propaganda
You forgot your monocle emojo. Here, take mine: 🧐
if you’re an economist I don’t think it’s that farfetched that you should know the beliefs of the most dominant school of economic thought especially considering your whole thing is criticizing them and any introductory material in the field would introduce you to their beliefs.
I think it’s far fetched to assume, especially without having read any of his works, that Graeber doesn’t know Austrian economics. 🤣
then get the money and go to china and leave us capitalists alone
No. And yes people can just “get money to move” my god you are worse than a republican. China has very strict immigration, and even then won’t let foreigners into the CPC.
I can just join the communist parties here to annoy you and make your country the way it must be.
fuck off and go raise funds to bring about the glorious revolution and ruin your own country