Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 194 posts

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#161

Post by ChainOfFools »

ashtonkem wrote: post #88
culi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol this sounds like a class assignment. E.g. the origins of agriculture. It's going from the idea of having a single point of origin to multiple (~15-20) points of origins around the world. Another major shift in thinking about agriculture is realizing it wasn't so much of a technological advancement (indeed agricultural people had radically reduced lifespans, less leisure time, more disease, etc) as something peopl…

> We have more and more examples of many very large rural places that very much go against the idea and drive a big hole in the idea that hierarchy is a natural biproduct of increasing populations. For those that are unaware, this is basically the core of anarchist political theory; hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force.

> hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force

by force of whom? Gods? Aliens? or was it by the humans within that society? this hypothesis has naturalistic fallacy written all over it.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#162

Post by krapp »

ChainOfFools wrote: post #161
ashtonkem wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have more and more examples of many very large rural places that very much go against the idea and drive a big hole in the idea that hierarchy is a natural biproduct of increasing populations. For those that are unaware, this is basically the core of anarchist political theory; hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force.

> hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force by force of whom? Gods? Aliens? or was it by the humans within that society? this hypothesis has naturalistic fallacy written all over it.

I assume by force they mean coercion by other humans with a greater capacity for violence or control over resources, although the obvious contrary example would be the natural hierarchy of families, of which tribal and clan societies were an extension. Knowledge and skill also tend to create hierarchies without necessarily requiring coercion, depending on how valuable that is in a specific society, although consolidating that power probably does require coercion, at least by keeping knowledge secret.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#163

Post by teachrdan »

panick21_ wrote: post #145
socialdemocrat wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not an anarchist at all but I think he has some very good criticisms of a lot of fundamental beliefs among modern day economists. Economics as a profession is built upon a set of axioms or premises about human nature and society. Graeber cannot go toe to toe with modern economists with their equations but he does a brilliant job of tearing apart the assumptions of economists within the classical school of though…

If you think "Debt: first 5000 years" is brilliant job a tearing apart assumtions of economics you don't know anything about economics. In fact is a pretty embracing takedown of strawmen he set up as how he imagines economists. He very clearly has so much distaste for economist that he couldn't even be bother to actually research the history of economics. He makes so many fundamental mistakes that are so embracing, h…

> The problem is that the book doesn't real proscribe anything practical so it does not actually translate into any coherent political position.

The book wasn't written to promote a practical (political?) position. It's an anthropology of debt. I'll give an examples of something I learned from it that I personally found incredibly interesting:

* Economists all tell the same story about the origin of currency. "People used to barter, but that was impractical, so they invented money to make exchange easier." There is literally no example of that happening in any society anywhere on Earth at any known time. He details instead how, in China, the government needed to raise a large, professional army, so the gov't paid soldiers in their new currency and forced the population to pay taxes in that currency. Poof! Society has reoriented itself to start using currency.

> He very clearly has so much distaste for economist that he couldn't even be bother to actually research the history of economics.

Can you give a specific example where he got the history of economics wrong? Because he cites specific cases where, for example Adam Smith borrowed from Islamic texts on finance; I don't know of anywhere he makes "fundamental mistakes," but I'd love to be proven wrong on that.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#164

Post by teachrdan »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #158
bluecheese33 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noted, but they still are pretty accepted in mainstream economics (nobel prize in economics in 2002). Also of course, they're not the only ones doing behavioral economics [1]: > Imperfect information is core to modern econ; theories showing how imperfect information can cause markets to break down received a Nobel 20 years ago. Perfect rationality has been successfully challenged by behavioral economics for decades,…

Definitely, but it amused me that psychologists keep winning the economics nobel :)

It might say more about economics than it does about psychology :)

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#165

Post by unmole »

quadrangle wrote: post #116
unmole wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I don't completely disagree with your comment. "The book asks big questions" would be a better discription than what I originally wrote. The book makes for excellent dinner table conversation. But I stand by my assertion that it does not provide any new perspectives on economics that bear any resemblance to the real world. And if anything, it makes it difficult for the reader to understand the financial syst…

Given that a decently large portion of the book discusses the anthropology of money and debt in a wide array of diverse cultures, the idea of lacking "resemblance to the real world" seems wrong to me. The real world includes all those different situations that are starkly different from the current dominant economic case. The core of the book in my reading is not a description of the dominant financial system. I read…

> Given that a decently large portion of the book discusses the anthropology of money and debt in a wide array of diverse cultures, the idea of lacking "resemblance to the real world" seems wrong to me. The real world includes all those different situations that are starkly different from the current dominant economic case.

Ignoring the quaint cultural practices of remote tribes does not diminish one's ability to understand the economics of the real world that they live in. Having an inaccurate picture of they actual system they live in on the other hand is far more damaging.

> but they were still more accurate by my understanding than the wrong-but-common concepts that are asserted by most naive citizens and used in most political rhetoric.

That is a rather low bar. But the book still has quite a few howlers:

- US treasury bonds are literally the safest securities on the planet. Graber calls them a debt that will never be paid.

- Graber claims that the global status of the dollar is maintained in large part by the fact that it is, again since 1971, the only currency used to buy and sell petroleum, glossing over the fact that the US dollar was the reserve currency since Bretton Woods. He then follows up with what can only be called a conspiracy theory, suggesting that the US invasion of Iraq was possibly motivated by Saddam Hussein's switch to the Euro.

- Graber likens the large holdings of US treasures by Western Europe, Japan and Korea to a tribute system which siphons wealth from these supposed client states to the American Empire. But when it comes to China holding vast quantities of the very same treasuries, he says from China's point of view, this is the first stage of a very long process of reducing the United States to something like a traditional Chinese client state.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#166

Post by justin66 »

cynicalkane wrote: post #35
jmcmichael wrote: post #27

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…

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…

I haven't read Debt yet but one can look at the index and jump right to p365 (Federal Reserve Bank - loans to government by, 365-366). It characterizes the Federal Reserve as "a peculiar sort of public-private hybrid" (this is certainly true, and it's a deliberate design feature) and gives an accurate but highly abbreviated description of fractional reserve banking and the Fed's purchase of government bonds.

Nothing on this page tells me that he doesn't understand the system or is attempting to deceive. I don't understand where your objection is coming from. Have you branded Graeber the great deceiver because of a line like "while technically, the Fed cannot lend money directly to the government by buying Treasury Bonds, everyone knows that doing so indirectly is one of its primary reasons for being"? That statement is a lot less controversial than you perhaps believe it is.

Everything on this page seems pretty innocuous, and while I'm sure the whole book is a lot more daring... this doesn't jive with your criticism at all.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#167

Post by justin66 »

unmole wrote: post #85
jmcmichael wrote: post #27

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…

> 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. It's been a while since I read Debt but I distinctly remember Graber's disingenuous take on Adam Smith's famous "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brew…

I haven't read Debt yet but I have a copy in front of me. Yours is the second critique here that seems to be based on a misreading or misunderstanding of the work.

You've not fully quoted Adam Smith:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Graeber's refutation, in part:

The bizarre thing here is that, at the time Smith was writing, this simply wasn't true. Most English shopkeepers were still carrying out the main part of their business on credit, which means that customers appealed to their benevolence all the time.

There's nothing disingenuous here. Benevolence (mutual trust and an interest in both one's well being and the well being of the other party in the relationship, informed by some knowledge of one's own needs and the needs of the other party, if you'd prefer to unpack it) is needed to establish a credit relationship.

None of this seems like "complete batshit." Some of the stuff that comes later might be, I haven't read it. (have you read it?)

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#168

Post by jessaustin »

ocschwar wrote: post #154
jessaustin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A democratic process would have to exist in order for us to "interact with" it (what would that even mean? if democracy is somehow separate from the people it isn't democracy). Citizens lose every vote. Rich assholes win every vote. A majority of citizens would never freely and informedly choose to fight multiple pointless wars of aggression on the other side of the planet. A majority of citizens would never freely a…

School boards and city councils are part of the democratic process, and they are open to you in your jurisdiction. You just have to face the prospect of your wishes being overruled for lack of support. That is part and parcel of living in a democratic society.

I don't live in a jurisdiction that has a city council. Is there something the local school board can do about the issues mentioned above? I had previously been pretty happy with their performance, but if they've been getting us in all these stupid wars then I have some complaints!

You seem determined to dismiss global concerns with quite specific imaginings of my apparently dysfunctional political participation. I don't actually care that much about democracy, per se. The concept is usually a red herring, cf. your contributions ITT. I just want to stop participating in a system that kills millions of innocents.

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#169

Post by andrekandre »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #87
skybrian wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disappearance of work seems greatly exaggerated. Education and healthcare are a big chunk of the economy and nowhere near automated. Also consider that we’ve been talking about driverless cars for over a decade, and this is something that should be well under way by now, but it’s slow going.

I used to think this as well until I read Bullshit Jobs. The point Graeber makes very well is that as jobs have gotten automated a way they have been replaced by a huge number of meaningless office jobs. And this isn’t based on him judging particular jobs as pointless but rather a huge number of people writing to him and explaining just how pointless their jobs are. So why don’t these people quit their jobs? Because…

  > That is partly what Graeber exposes: How many CEOs will keep around people they don’t need because what is the point of being a boss of you got nobody to boss around?
i've literally seen this in action: managers jockeying for promotion hire as many workers or contractors as they can get, bloating their teams to prove who can "manage more people" best...

the result? you guessed it: bullshit jobs

Re: David Graeber’s Possible Worlds

#170

Post by culi »

ChainOfFools wrote: post #161
ashtonkem wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have more and more examples of many very large rural places that very much go against the idea and drive a big hole in the idea that hierarchy is a natural biproduct of increasing populations. For those that are unaware, this is basically the core of anarchist political theory; hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force.

> hierarchies aren't merely natural consequences of human society, but were in fact created via force by force of whom? Gods? Aliens? or was it by the humans within that society? this hypothesis has naturalistic fallacy written all over it.

Isn't it rebelling against a naturalistic fallacy? I think the naturalistic fallacy here is the assumption that hierarchies are natural. The point being made is that hierarchies are manmade and must be enforced by people to uphold. It's NOT just a natural consequence of growth
Post reply on HN