After the pandemic, we can’t go back to sleep (2020)

This is a human universal. Even uncontacted hunter gatherer tribes spend most of their days doing absolutely nothing useful whatsoever. They sit around and talk shit with their friends. This is not social control. Humans doing nothing useful for most of the day is the norm.

Add to the fact: nothing prevents them from putting their money where their mouth is and living the life, right now, however which way the communes are envisioned. Hell, even the Amish and Mennonites are still doing their thing.

> If I was to judge someone character strictly off their economic status, you’re likely to find on average that the average rich man is a more moral productive member of society than the average poor one.

You didn't give an argument as to why you would believe that. Graeber presumably believes the opposite because the poor suffer needing while the rich refrain from helping despite being able to. It can be considered allowing harm[1], introductory trolley problem stuff. Of course I can't speak for him but based on what he's written elsewhere I think he would agree that it's not possible to be rich and moral while people go starving because he believes people have an obligation to help those in need when they can (i.e. when it is not too harmful to themselves.) If you don't agree with that, then it's likely you differ in the assumptions you have rather than the logic here.

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/

But lets work with your new point. Saying "all the economic systems we've tried produced inequality" with the implication being there's no point in attempting to devise new ones is rather like saying "all materials we've devised produced some amount of friction". Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment.

Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does.

My meaning was very plain. I said many people would be unconvinced that anything could be done to achieve equality. I then stated they could point to thousands of years of human life (which, as you correctly stated, contained many economic systems). If you put both points together, you'd see that I was saying essentially that 'no human system tried has achieved equality', so many people would believe that there are few changes we can make to ours to achieve this goal.

I'm going to expound on this idea more. Please consider everything I say before jumping to conclusions this time.

> Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment.

Correct. But there's more than one knob. Some systems produce little inequality, but lots of destitution. Others produce lots of inequality but little destitution. By all objective metrics, ours produces little destitution, and while it produces inequality, it is a different form of inequality than many other systems. For example, marxism and communism in the forms tried produce more equality, but utter destitution for large swaths of the population (it's a race to the bottom). Our system of free markets, even in its heavily corrupt form, produces inequality, certainly, but little destitution, by all objective metrics. Moreover, of the inequality we create, it is a shifting inequality. Studies show that family fortunes in the United States do not form dynasties as they do in other economic systems (like monarchist mercantilism, for example). Most family wealth dissipates by the third or fourth generation.

If some inequality that ends up being redistributed is the price we pay for less destitution, then I don't see why equality ought to be prized.

> Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does.

Okay, and as I said, simply optimizing for 'equality' and 'environment degradation' would not lead to a good economic system. There are other goals you're completely ignoring. WE can create a system that's perfectly equal and great for the environment, but leaves everyone destitute.

For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends