Get Off My Blog

Photo
Graeber is fascinating. Economic anthropology, holmes!rtnt:

Do We Need Money?
David Graeber’s new book Debt: The First 5,000 Years re-examines the accepted economic wisdom that the development of our system of money and debt was inevitable. In this review for The New Inquiry, Aaron Bady explores Graeber’s argument and imagines a world without money:

Originating with Adam Smith, the argument is that humanity needed to invent money because it was so inconvenient to do all our shopping by exchanging whatever we happened to have for whatever people around us happened to have. If your neighbor is a weaver, and you raise pigs, it’s going to be difficult to do any kind of economic transaction that doesn’t involve trading pigs for cloth – goes the story – so people created forms of currency to better enable themselves to trade and re-distribute the stockpile of goods that specialized artisans and producers suddenly find themselves over-producing. What if I want cloth but my neighbor doesn’t want pigs? What if the people who want pigs have nothing that I want? And what if you want an iPad, for god’s sake?
…
Graeber is only the latest anthropologist to point out that this story is pure wish-fulfillment, that no such pure-barter society has ever existed, and that we have a deep and rich historical record of what people actually did in non-money economies: go into each other’s debt. And it makes a simple kind of sense. In rural communities where people live side by side for their entire lives — working and eating and trading together, as they have for the majority of human history – people begin to depend on each other, rely on each other, even enjoy each others’ company. They begin to act like neighbors rather than competitors; they begin to worry about maintaining their status and well-being in a community whose status and well-being suddenly also becomes, as a result, a matter of their own self-interest; and they begin to think of human relations as a thing to be fostered for mutual benefit and long-term stability (rather than plundered and exploited for personal enrichment). 

Read the full article here.

Graeber is fascinating. Economic anthropology, holmes!

rtnt
:

Do We Need Money?

David Graeber’s new book Debt: The First 5,000 Years re-examines the accepted economic wisdom that the development of our system of money and debt was inevitable. In this review for The New Inquiry, Aaron Bady explores Graeber’s argument and imagines a world without money:

Originating with Adam Smith, the argument is that humanity needed to invent money because it was so inconvenient to do all our shopping by exchanging whatever we happened to have for whatever people around us happened to have. If your neighbor is a weaver, and you raise pigs, it’s going to be difficult to do any kind of economic transaction that doesn’t involve trading pigs for cloth – goes the story – so people created forms of currency to better enable themselves to trade and re-distribute the stockpile of goods that specialized artisans and producers suddenly find themselves over-producing. What if I want cloth but my neighbor doesn’t want pigs? What if the people who want pigs have nothing that I want? And what if you want an iPad, for god’s sake?

…

Graeber is only the latest anthropologist to point out that this story is pure wish-fulfillment, that no such pure-barter society has ever existed, and that we have a deep and rich historical record of what people actually did in non-money economies: go into each other’s debt. And it makes a simple kind of sense. In rural communities where people live side by side for their entire lives — working and eating and trading together, as they have for the majority of human history – people begin to depend on each other, rely on each other, even enjoy each others’ company. They begin to act like neighbors rather than competitors; they begin to worry about maintaining their status and well-being in a community whose status and well-being suddenly also becomes, as a result, a matter of their own self-interest; and they begin to think of human relations as a thing to be fostered for mutual benefit and long-term stability (rather than plundered and exploited for personal enrichment). 

Read the full article here.

via atomvincent
Posted on Tuesday, February 7 2012.
29
Notes
  1. gogomarigo liked this
  2. degrading reblogged this from lick-chicks-not-dicks
  3. aquaticircus reblogged this from 36slottoaster
  4. 36slottoaster liked this
  5. 36slottoaster reblogged this from lick-chicks-not-dicks
  6. mcmermaid reblogged this from gabesmellslikecaca
  7. gabesmellslikecaca reblogged this from jasonregurgitateshisthoughts
  8. starsaresilent liked this
  9. trans-form-art liked this
  10. passthegoddamnbutter liked this
  11. soitgoesrandomly liked this
  12. kropotkinskayastation reblogged this from littleblackkittycat
  13. occupydfw liked this
  14. questionall liked this
  15. questionall reblogged this from socialistexan
  16. truebohemian liked this
  17. gonzoeconomy reblogged this from rtnt and added:
    I actually wanted to read this book awhile ago, but wound up starting my self-education in Economics in other ways, but...
  18. littleblackkittycat liked this
  19. sailorsblues liked this
  20. littleblackkittycat reblogged this from socialistexan
  21. dreams-from-my-father liked this
  22. lick-chicks-not-dicks liked this
  23. lick-chicks-not-dicks reblogged this from socialistexan
  24. jasonregurgitateshisthoughts reblogged this from socialistexan
  25. socialistexan reblogged this from rtnt
  26. together12up liked this
  27. getoffmyblog reblogged this from atomvincent and added:
    Graeber is fascinating. Economic anthropology, holmes! rtnt:
  28. atomvincent reblogged this from rtnt
  29. carton-rouge liked this
  30. rtnt posted this
Ask me anything
Previous Next