6 ms·

I checked that one out myself. Modern economics textbooks don't do that. That entire section seemed to be Graeber saying "Economists have been promoting a myth

by PaulAJ 5y ago

I checked that one out myself. Modern economics textbooks don't do that. That entire section seemed to be Graeber saying "Economists have been promoting a myth for the last two centuries, but here I graciously point out their error so that they may be corrected and learn the truth." It never seems to occur to him that he might be tilting at a straw man. I'm quite happy to agree that Smith got it wrong, but the modern examples Graeber cites don't support his claims. If you read them more carefully, what they are saying is "IF we were to live in a barter world then it would be very inefficient, hence money". They don't say that Barter World ever existed; its just a thought experiment.

littlestymaar 5y ago
> Most economists would probably relate a stylized “history of money” something like the following: As specialization caused problems in coordinating trade, societies naturally settled upon certain commodities, usually metals, as media of exchange. The Transition From Barter to Fiat Money, Saint Louis Fed WORKING PAPER SERIES, 1994: https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/1994/94-004.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/1994/94-004.pdf This idea is widely accepted to be wrong today, but as you can see it wasn't the case not so long ago.