Wobbly anthropologist on Thom Hartmann show

[RGacky3]

SnOqanbHZi4
L5c5mZhDs4U

Interesting analysis of hte history of debt, money and so on.

[Revolution starts with U]

Anthropology, fuck yeah! :D

[danyboy27]

Saw the videos this morning while eating breakfast, i am gonna buy his book, verry interesting perspective.

checked on Amazon, its only 20 bucks.

[IcarusAngel]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/what-is-debt-%E2%80%93-an-interview-with-economic-anthropologist-david-graeber.html

so much for theory of money and credit and other crappy books by Austrians and their nonsense like the regression theorem.

[Dean]

I read the NakedCapitalism article a couple weeks ago. Very interesting stuff.

[Dean]

Update: Austrian Blogosphere reacts to Graeber, produces impotent "critique" that merely distances their idol (Menger) from Graeber's arguments, which they don't even attempt to refute.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/david-graeber-on-the-invention-of-money-%E2%80%93-notes-on-sex-adventure-monomaniacal-sociopathy-and-the-true-function-of-economics.html



Last week, Robert F. Murphy published a piece on the webpage of the Von Mises Institute (http://mises.org/daily/5598/Have-Anthropologists-Overturned-Menger) responding to some points I made in a recent interview on Naked Capitalism (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/what-is-debt-%E2%80%93-an-interview-with-economic-anthropologist-david-graeber.html), where I mentioned that the standard economic accounts of the emergence of money from barter appears to be wildly wrong. Since this contradicted a position taken by one of the gods of the Austrian pantheon, the 19th century economist Carl Menger, Murphy apparently felt honor-bound to respond.

In a way, Murphy’s essay barely merits response. In the interview I’m simply referring to arguments made in my book, ‘Debt: The First 5000 Years’. In his response, Murphy didn’t even consult the book; in fact he later admitted he was responding at least in part not even to the interview but to an inaccurate summary of my position someone had made in another blog!

[danyboy27]

I am currently reading the book, and i have to say, its verry interesting.

Adam smith got beaten and bruised in the first chapters, dismantling the myth that barter came before money, and criticizing the overly simplistic exemples smith and other economics professors use to explain why money came to replace barter.

i LOLed hard when i read the part where he describe the attempts by missionnary and explorer, carrying the wealth of the nation with them to find the ''land of barter''.

Its a good book(so far), i suggest you all to read it eventually.