51–60 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having read too much history for fun and jobs, the comment sounds wrong. You can go back to the Roman republic to find people concerned about this (Gracchi brothers).
Or the Book of James about 2000 years ago (in the Roman Empire).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
David Graeber already had an answer to this with his idea of "bullshit jobs", wherein as the labor that is necessary to keep society running is slowly reduced or automated away entirely by technological advancement, more jobs are invented that serve no practical purpose other than to keep people performing the wage labor ritual of selling their time to capitalists (keep in mind Graeber was a left-wing anarchist) in o…
All Anarchists are left wing. AnCaps aren't anarchists. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
I’m not saying it’s good, only questioning a certain definition.
The formation of cultural norms fundamentally sit on the idea of recollection of the distant past and not of that which has just happened in front of you.
Example: The reason for wearing ties is part of the western cultural code not because each person distinctly and has first-hand witnessed how it started, it's just being shaped by historical precedent.
So what happens, over time, to cultural norms when the recollection can be made in first-person, distinct ways? (Think the internet, VR)
Interesting. Makes me want to actually read Guns, Germs, and Steel and Sapiens. I watched the GG&S documentary & enjoyed it, but I should read the book. What single book of Graeber should I read that has his most important ideas? Is it this one?
I'd recommend Debt . It made me rethink a lot of what I "knew" about money and economics. Bullshit Jobs is also interesting, but it's a much lighter, much more "pop" book. I haven't read this one yet to know if it's on the same level as Debt , but the reviews so far have suggested it is.
For me I came away not with answers, but feeling like I could for the first time actually think about its big issues (money, economics, morality, community).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m going to assume that you’re basing your opinion of Graeber on Brad DeLong’s unhinged attacks on his work and character. There are no factual mistakes in “Debt” that impact the solidity of Graeber’s conclusions or historical narratives, most inaccuracies were minor and corrected in subsequent editions without changing the character of the book or the arguments within. Many if not most of DeLong’s attacks of inaccu…
It would be interesting to read a review of Debt by some other economist. I don’t think this can be settled by quoting DeLong or Graeber, considering the bitterness of this feud.
That's not really inviting for academic economists that need to focus on quantitative or experimental research and would get nothing by wading into these debates.
So those with economic training who do touch it will be outside Academia or on the margins. Here are some:
* https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/07/hummel_on_graeb.htm...
* http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-...
* https://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/debt-the-first-500-pages/
* https://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/25/too-big-to-fail-the-fir...
The general consensus of these reviews is "man, he gets a lot of stuff wrong, and I don't agree with the central thesis, but boy what rich examples, and interesting insights are in this book."
The reason deLong waded in is that he has a very promiscuous mind and likes to think about Soviet tank strategy in World War 2, financial markets, and public policy. And he shares all those ruminations on his blog. So he'll pick it up, but he has tenure and (apparently) lots of leisure time. There aren't many others in the same position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To name just one of Graeber's essential lies: he makes the claim that Federal Reserve issuing American debt is privately controlled and weaves an extensive chapter based in fundamental ways on this misapprehension. This is a lie that's not "minor" nor "a matter of interpretation" nor unrelated to the "character of the book or arguments within": it's a fundamental misapprehension of the most important debt instrument…
> To name just one of Graeber's essential lies: he makes the claim that Federal Reserve issuing American debt is privately controlled From a short piece of writing from the St. Louis Fed itself, linked to in another comment below: >The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Now, we could quote the next few lines too, for a bit more context: > So i…
Began "The Dawn of Everything" about a week ago, still on chapter 3. Chapter 2 was very, very good. Worth the whole book alone. It begins with by questioning "why did Rousseau wrote about inequality if 100 years before no one in western culture cared about it"? Then he goes to show how the themes of liberty and social equality came from Canadian First Nations criticism of western culture. It is very well argued, soli…
There were plenty of Westerners who were concerned with inequality -- there were numerous failed peasant rebellions throughout Europe ever since the Middle Ages.
But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality". Equality under a ruler or rebellion against abuses is not the same as thinking the whole society as composed of equals. Think of no-slavery, equality among genders, sexual freedom, etc. Even thinkers that thought about equality before Iluminism (e.g. Thomas More) didn't go that far.
I strongly recommend you reading, at least, chapter 2 in the book. Is way deeper than what I explain.
It's a well-written biography and Graeber comes across as a great guy but on the other hand the Brad DeLong takedown linked in the article [1] is quite something. I'm wondering how he wrote a 500 page book on debt without really understanding banking? [1] https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/01/the-very-last-david-g...
I want to add to the above comment. Graeber's lack of integrity and disregard for facts should cast a shadow of mistrust over his other work, not to mention his explosive reaction on being called out for it. If you can't trust someone's writings on facts you know about, why trust them on facts you don't know about? One of the essential things to understand when taking in information is to first understand: is this in…
https://www.economist.com/business/2021/06/05/why-the-bullsh...
"In his book, Mr Graeber relied heavily on surveys of British and Dutch workers that asked participants whether their job made a meaningful contribution to the world. This seems a high bar to clear; it is unsurprising that 37-40% of respondents thought their job didn’t qualify. By contrast, the academics used the European Working Conditions Surveys, which by 2015 had talked to 44,000 workers across 35 countries. They focused on those respondents who thought that the statement “I have the feeling of doing useful work” applied to them “rarely” or “never”.
and :
"Furthermore, those who work in clerical and administrative jobs are far less likely to view their jobs as useless than those who are employed in roles that Mr Graeber regarded as essential, such as refuse collection and cleaning. Indeed, the researchers found an inverse relationship between education and the feeling of usefulness. Less educated workers were likelier to feel that their jobs were useless. And student debt does not appear to be a factor. In Britain, where its level is the highest in Europe, non-graduates under 29 were twice as likely to feel useless as their indebted graduate peers."
In contrast to the high share of bullshit jobs reported by Mr Graeber, in 2015 only 4.8% of respondents in the eu felt their work was useless. And this proportion had fallen, not risen, in recent years, from 5.5% in 2010 and 7.8% in 2005."
Link to the paper discussed by the article:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170211015...
David Graeber had a wonderful talent for finding innovative and fascinating ways to be wrong about something. That will always make his writings worth reading and rereading. But before thinking he's right, remember he's guy behind the Occupy movement's rules of order, which is why the meetings took so torturously long. I remain a little irked by it, because a whole cohort of 18 year old activists sat at Occupy meetin…
New forms of collective decision making require new tools.
I wouldn't ever run an endorsement meeting using joint application design (JAD). Just like I wouldn't use RRO for eliciting user requirements.
Source: 8 years on exec board for local party, former UI designer.
PS- In fact, we're always tweaking our bylaws. To be more fair, more efficient, more representative, etc. For instance, we now use approval voting to stack rank motions to endorse, for maximal fairness. Doing so completely short circuits gaming RRO and mostly eliminated drama around the process.
PS2- OMG, experiencing traumatic flashbacks. Using RRO to craft platforms, amend bylaws, etc is literally hell on earth. Transmuting trivial activities using any other conceivable methodology into soul sucking unending torture. Last time we amended our bylaws, we had rapid response team from suicide prevention hotline physically present to monitor our members and preemptively intervene as necessary.
Interesting. Makes me want to actually read Guns, Germs, and Steel and Sapiens. I watched the GG&S documentary & enjoyed it, but I should read the book. What single book of Graeber should I read that has his most important ideas? Is it this one?
I read both Diamond's and Harari's and am reading this one.
All three are very, very good.
Graeber makes heavy criticism of Harari and Diamond, but I found his criticism to be marginal. He really doesn't touch the core of those 2 books.