/lit/ - Literature

I haven't read the book but the title says 'the first 5000 years', isn't debt a choice? I mean you no longer inherit debt, and you can't go to debtors prison anymore.

The historic facts are correct, but as in an usual anthropologist manner his conjectures go way too far.

>>17941821
Boomerang by Michael Lewis is a good book on some of the countries that went into meltdown after the 2008 GFC, in a way ur starting with the greeks.
And the greeks will not pay their tax.

>>17941836
You need debt to do anything nowadays: go to college, buy a house, buy a car, many even rely on credit cards to pay day to day bills.

>>17941876
People are brainwashed into thinking they have to live beyond their means. If you can't afford something, don't buy it. If you have to rent a room in a house instead of buying a house, so be it.

>>17941836
This is bait

>>17941890
True, but our society is orientated towards more and more consumption. Out of interest what does /lit think of the degrowth movement?

>>17941890
>Rent house for $1800/month
>All that money is gone when you move ten years later

>Buy house on credit, pay $2200/month credit
>At the end of ten years, own a quarter of a house worth half a million dollars or more
Considering how inflated the housing market is, and how the exorbitant costs of buying a house are passed on to renters, and how the housing market just keeps going up and up and up with no end in sight, you could say that most people can't afford not to live beyond their means.

>>17941927
>$2200/month credit
$2200/month mortgage

>>17941921
Well I don't know what would happen to the economy without consumerism and such. But I personally reject it. I'm on a used computer, I buy mostly used books, I live on a plot of land and try to live simply within my means. If I do buy something new I make sure to only buy something that will last.

>>17941927
Mortgage can be an OK debt, credit cards, student loans etc I don't think are worth it.
The problem is people take mortgages that are too large. That's why I suggest renting just a single room in a house, live frugal, save up and buy a modest place so you don't get foreclosed on if your property value drops or the interest rates skyrocket.

>>17941821
>what are some books that deal with economics and history at the same time
If you're ready to put your big boy pants on, then its time you take the plunge, anon. Whether you like it or not, it's essential to read.

>>17941945
If I'd find a diamond on the floor with zero effort then according to the labour theory of value it's worth nothing, while if I'd put in all efforts to build a giant pile of reeking shit for 3 days I should be payed handsomely. i dont think anyone argues that labour is not a critical factor in value, but the idea that labour is the singular determination is just silly. It’s the mental trick of the humanists who determiend beforehand that workers were important, but since workers have only their work, they tried to make a price 100% about the work of the worker, ie how long does a worker needs to produce a good.

It’s the usual hypocrisy of the atheist who tries to find a justification to his innate prejudices lol. It’s all retroactive.

>>17941982
these are the people that shit on marx lmao

>>17941982
Is that really what it says? That something has value just because it took labour? Doesn't sound right to me.

>>17941982
Marx doesn't argue that value is only contingent on labor, he argues that the value of a good or service increases in relation to the labor put into it, and under modern capitalism the vast majority of value in any given good/service is accrued through labor rather than innate quality of capital itself (c + L = W, not L = W). A properly cut diamond or a diamond that has been refined into a fine tool/service which requires the diamond as a core component will be more valuable than the raw diamond itself. This is because the labor needed to refine the diamond into a specific form/utility appreciates its value.

>>17941945
I’m not at that stage yet, but I’ll read the Marx-Engels reader eventually. I want to get a firm understanding of conventional economics first.

>>17941944
A mortgage is the same thing as a student loan, it's paying more money now in exchange for returns later on. I'd agree that currently the returns on higher education are much lower than the returns on property ownership, but that hasn't always been true and could easily change again in the near future.

The problem is that in a lot of ways, things are set up so that it makes more financial sense to borrow than to wait, but that borrowing is built on fraud that actively harms borrowers and non-borrowers alike. Most lenders (banks) are lending out money that they don't actually possess (fractional reserve), and basically saying "here's an IOU, just come to me when you actually need to spend the money and I'll buy that thing for you." This effectively creates money out of thin air, by allowing multiple individuals to "own" the same money at the same time. Increasing the money supply reduces the value of money, which is expressed as inflation. This inflation is focused on the markets where people get loans most often (houses, cars, education, etc), causing bubbles. The result of a housing bubble is the price of housing riding very rapidly, not just for buyers, but for renters as well, since their rent is being used to pay their landlord's mortgage.

It's a system designed by lenders to punish people for not borrowing, while letting lenders basically print money, which they can spend directly on physical products and properties, so they're protected and still have substantial assets even when the bubble bursts, and everyone who borrowed ridiculous amounts to pay for things that should have been much cheaper get screwed as they end up underwater.

>>17941821
>popecon

>>17942032
I'm certainly not going to argue if you think mortgages are bad as well, I try to avoid any kind of debt. I was just saying I think it's currently the best type of debt to hold if you have to have any.
I don't see student loans ever being worthwhile if you're financing $50+k a year.

>>17942015
You should probably start with Adam Smith then as a basic but essential primer of market economics. Max and Engels heavily cite Smith in the critique of capitalism, as does pretty much every economist. Smith and Marx are generally considered the two most influential economists in history, so they both should be studied fairly.

>>17942015
Mate you're not going to understand conventional economics by reading a pop-history book written by an anarchist. Read picrelated and do all of the practice exercises. This is how conventional economics is taught.

>>17942081
This is wrong. Nobody reads smith anymore, except for "history of economic thought" departments or whatever. He's not really relevant to the field anymore. Things like picrelated are what people actually study

>>17941939
You personally reject it but in your post you describe your lifestyle as if you practice it?

>>17942226
Ok I'm not living in a hut Ted style, but it's a far cry from typical consumerism. I grow my own food and do the best that I can to provide for myself. I try to strike a reasonable balance.

>>17941945
>>17941989
>>17941993
>>17942009
>>17942015
Kill yourselves retard commies

>>17942101
>nobody reads Smith
He's still very relevant you retarded imbecile.

>>17942250
>He's still very relevant you retarded imbecile
false. seriously how is still relevant when political economy is long dead, argumentation is replaced with mathematical form, money is irrelevant etc.

>>17942250
>He's still very relevant you retarded imbecile.
He wasn't even mentioned once during my degree. Nobody cares anymore

>>17942301
Ah, I see you didn't attend a real university like Hillsdale! You missed that great chapter on the corn market.

>>17941821
Bataille

>>17942246
>living in a hut ted style
But anon that's not what degrowth is. It's not advocating intentionally moving toward an anarcho-primitive lifestyle but moving away from prioritizing economic growth as the most important thing. Emphasizing sustainability and minimalism even if as a side effect it results in the decline in economic activity/growth but these things aren't its intentional goals

>>17942319
Well yeah I know but someone said to me I wasn't living that way because I still bought stuff.

>>17941821
its a "shit" book worth reading. Similar to Guns Germs and Steel.

Covers a great deal of interesting material, but a lot of the conclusions and reasoning are wrong. Some of the more hilarious errors went viral. Still worth a read though due to its coverage of ancient economics.

>>17942319
>moving away from prioritizing economic growth as the most important thing
You think this is plausible?

>>17942359
I hope so, though it doesn't bode well that the only countries I can think of that actually do this and don't just say they do are dictatorships. And they only function that way to keep the masses from too occupied by poverty to demand political democratization

>>17941821
I dont get it, is this about a history of debt? Because you cant sell yourself or your children into slavery anymore nor are there debtors prisons so this picture of the shackles is really inappropriate.

>>17942356
>Some of the more hilarious errors went viral
elaborate

>>17941891
almost fell for it >>17942375

>>17942381
https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/11/monday-smackdown-in-the-absence-of-high-quality-delong-smackdowns-back-to-david-graeber.html

specifically the one about apple computers is the worst


>David Graeber: Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages...

Proof it wasnt proofread as it were. As I say though, its worth reading, of just as a summary of the work of another economist who works mostly in anicent economics ( I dont have his name to hand).

>>17942405
just looking at the first points are baffling
1) he clearly acknowledges the gold inflation theory, and debate around it, but just doesn't agree with it
2) literally writes about it in the reference
3) irrelevant because of 2
4) unarmed means peaceful?

>>17942468
yeah, I dont know much about the economics ones. But the apple one is cleary just completely retarded and does throw, for me, much of the rest of the book into doubt as a result.

>>17942493
>ch of the rest of the book into doubt as a result.
for me it was the weird redefinition of the word "communism", and the typical liberal glorification of the noble savage and the orient. so to speak, the stain of ideology.

>>17941890
>If you can't afford something, don't buy it.
yes!

>If you have to rent a room in a house instead of buying a house, so be it.
No!

Either live at home with your parents or take on debt to buy, but renting is the single stupidest thing you can do.

>>17942537
You're assuming property values will go up and interest rates stay low, under that assumption yes. Obviously living at home is better than renting even a small room, but you should still save enough down payment and not get a risky mortgage that has only 5% down or something.

>>17941921
not all bad in theory
but...

>>17942648
It’s a pipe dream, like communism

>>17941821
It's better than most other recommendations you can get.

>>17942087
Why? Remember when all the "conventional economists" were predicting America would face a sovereign debt crises throughout the 2000s as the trade deficit ballooned and thought China would attack the dollar but that never happened and instead problems broke out with American mortgage-backed securities which caused problems with European banks which most had noting worrying to say about beforehand? Don't you find it funny none of the big names used their analytical skills to getting into crypto early or basically anything else which could of got them big returns?

>>17941982
If you do something which requires others significantly more time to do than that doesn't change the price. If you discovered some universal cheat code and published it where everyone could just find diamonds everywhere they'd be worthless obviously but you wouldn't want to do that even if you could and would try to exploit you're alchemy and maintain the price at its current level. Marx is wrong for a lot of reasons but that ad hominem is weak.

>>17942375
How is it "inappropriate? Developing countries get predatory loans pushed on them and than instead of being allowed to default and get black listed from more credit when they obviously can't pay back they're pressured into taking on more loans with conditionalities which destroy all their prospects for real economic growth. Debtor prisions in America in the 19th century harmed select individuals not the entire nations future.

>>17941921
A nice way to sell austerity to idiot libs

>>17941821
Cool it with the antisemitic literature.

>>17942296
>political economy is long dead, argumentation is replaced with mathematical form, money is irrelevant etc.
On what planet are you living?

>>17942301
>education is shit in 2021
who could have thought

>>17941821
It's an excellent example of a book which is full of conjecture and speculation as >>17941846 says, but is interesting and insightful nonetheless.

>>17941982
The weird thing is that Marx's theory *is* limited in what it can explain, but everybody gets caught up on the easy parts.

If you found a bunch of diamonds that's just good fortune for you! The thing is, most diamonds are not just found laying around like pinecones, most diamonds require an immense amount of effort to mine and transport. And as Marx says clearly and repeatedly, it's not about the specific labour that goes into a specific commodity, it's about the average labour that goes into a type of commodity that tells us something about it's value.

Since diamonds on average require an immense amount of work to gather, the 'market value' of a diamond high, and you will still get a normal amount of money for your diamonds.

>>17942933
>Why?
he said he wanted to learn conventional econ.

>>17942359
It's the inevitable conclusion, but people will not like its outcome.

>>17941982
>muh labor theory of value
Fucking kill yourself faggot. I would post further but it’s pointless to try and talk to randroids.

>>17941821
Reading it now and it’s very interesting and enjoyable

>>17941982
And to expand on what I mean by Marx's theory being 'limited', Marx's theory assumes the existence of a competitive market and only covers goods that are already in the exchange process.

The theory Marx lays out in Capital can't (and doesn't attempt to) explain how prices are set at a yard sale or a thrift store, where the goods for sale are either donated for free or are otherwise detached from their original purchase. Also, people selling unique handicrafts on etsy would fall outside Marx's theory. Also I think Marx might run into trouble actually giving a full account of how pricing works under a monopoly without needing to refer back to the market before it was monopolized.

This book is absolutely BASED.
It’s a treasure trove of ideas and information organized in a way people are rarely ever taught.
Everyone else in the thread is butthurt because they don’t understand labor theory or because the book ideological deviates from their opinions.
I’m nearly done with it and it really has blown my mind every few minutes of reading. Just the absolute historical scope of the thing is amazing.

>>17943415
whats something that blew your mind

>>17941821
>what are some books that deal with economics and history at the same time

>>17943423
The detailed explanations of societies very different from our own. The use of various materials or symbols etc as methods of exchange.
His idea of social, unplayable debts.
How the glorification of knights was a con job for merchants.
The Irish using slave girls as a currency.
Sumerian daily society.
The evolution of coinage.
The government/military/market theory.
The ebb and flow of currency vs debt obligations and it’s in between evolutions of commercial paper and other debt instruments.
Those are some from the top of my head.
I dunno man, I suppose I should just read an anthropology text book, but I don’t think I ever will.

>>17943511
Oh the whole idea of dowry and stuff, mixed with the idea of youthful contract slavery and experience leading to master craftsmanship and how the industrial revolution kinda destroyed that whole system, leading to a sort of eternal childhood for people these days.

>>17942009
>A properly cut diamond or a diamond that has been refined into a fine tool/service which requires the diamond as a core component will be more valuable than the raw diamond itself. This is because the labor needed to refine the diamond into a specific form/utility appreciates its value.
Totally wrong. The price of the diamond doesn’t increase because of the labor itself, it increases because in order to buy the labor and skills necessary to refine the diamond, one must pay higher wages to the worker than say, a wood cutter, thus raising the final product price in order to generate profit.

>>17943415
I’m in the same boat. I’ll probably finish out on a few days but it’s been an eye opener in many ways

>>17943511
What do think about the idea that philosophy was born out from contemplation over essence of money? Did that "blow your mind" too, since it almost made me to blow out my mind

>>17943511
>The Irish using slave girls as a currency.
kek pretty based, native americans did the same but just with all women, not particularly slaves

>>17943815
I’m not sure I quite agree with it but, yes it is a radical and interesting theory. I think it’s one that someone could use to piss off philosophy majors or end discussions quickly.

But yes, it “blew my mind”

>>17941836
Are you literally retarded?

>>17942537
Eh, if you're young and starting your career, mobility can be a huge factor in how much you're able to increase your income. Renting allows you to be flexible. Early monthly mortgage payments are gonna be heavily pushed into covering your interest and mortgage insurance if you don't put down mad stacks

I listened to audiobook of first 4 hours of it when I was painting a fence last summer. It's really engaging, looks at debt from anthropological and sociological point of view and has many interesting information in it. I'd recommend it to everyone.
>>17941836
you should read the book then

>>17941821
The book is well researched, but unnecessary long due to Graeber's preoccupation with small, mostly unknown societies from his anthropology background. The first 5000 years is a bit of a misnomer as he only gets to post 1971 in the last 100 pages or so and then the time period is discussed only as it relates to the ideas he's built in the first 4/5ths of the book.

If you're mathematically minded, I highly suggest "Against the Gods: The remarkable story of Risk" by Peter Bernstein.

if you're at all interested in accounting I rec "The Reckoning: the making and breaking of nations" by Jacob Soll

if you like a more pop-sci view of things: "A Splendid Exchange" by William Bernstein

t. finance bro going back to school for lit

>>17941821
>DEBINS

>>17941927
both these actions create different liabilities; a mortgage you can be on the hook for all your assets, a lease can be broken with minimal loss

>>17941939
consumerism gives you this choice-and I think you're making a wise one to consider replacement costs
>>17941944
all debt can be ok, if used responsibly, but most people cannot do that

>>17942032
I think you're overlooking the impact of interest rates on this calculation; in times of higher interest, you could earn a decent return on savings alone with no risk (FDIC insured deposit). You aren't punished for not taking on debt, but what makes a mortgage different is that it is tied to an asset that typically appreciates (home equity) and serves as the primary tax mitigator (or tax shield) as its interest is deductible on taxes. In lower interest rate environments, like today's, the calculation of to borrow or not to borrow is perversely impacted by how low rates are (in many EU countries the rate is negative to encourage consumption over savings)

>>17942081
this is because Smith invented Econ and made it a subject for scholarly focus, he cleaved it from philosophy

>>17944142
>unnecessary long
I actually wish it were longer.

>>17944555
I think he should have covered more of recent times given the lower for longer interest rates, but I believe the impending GFC fallout forced him to publish before it became recent history

what bugs me about him is his static understanding of debt from the early parts of the book never change and feel really stretched when applied to anything after 1971

>>17942081
>both should be studied fairly.
No, only Smith should.

Marx is completely irrelevant and has zero value.

>>17944582
As a lawyer, there were some parts where his ineptitude showed brightly for me, but overall I still greatly enjoyed the book. I think his understanding of financial instruments was static, but at the same time an effective way to maneuver for the reader, and when it's boiled down to it there isn't all that much different. But i also haven't read the last chapter about post 1971 yet, that's actually right where I left off, so I don't know.

>>17941821
This book is unironically great and you should read it. People who dislike it either don't understand it, are salty liberals, or both

>>17944602
this is a good assessment imo. I enjoyed it too for its scope, but feel as though it lost relevancy to recent times. I take your point about static depictions, but by the same token, it would have been interesting to see how we have redefined liability and used legal constructs to limit personal liability and ease risk taking

Twilight of the money gods

>>17944739
There are a ton of inaccuracies in it.

>>17944934
I doubt you’ve read it.
Probably referencing a National Review hit piece of it.

Watched the PBS docuseries and enjoyed it. Haven't read the book though because reading is for faggots.

>>17944969
>Reading Tory books are for faggots
Ftfy

>>17944969
Good book, but chapters where he praises the likes of Soros and Greenspan are a stretch

>>17945020
>chapters where he praises the likes of Soros and Greenspan are a stretch
What was he praising them for?

>>17945070
Overcoming anti-Semitism.

>>17941876
You don’t “need” debt.

>>17944840
I guess I’ll just have to write the sequel. I’ve been meaning to read that legal history book I have anyway.

Just finished it. Holy based.

>>17945102
brainlet detected; please fuck off and go back to /pol/ where your tired jokes and Critique references will be applauded
>>17945070
source please? there's literally no reference to Soros at all
>pic related

>>17945165
plz do and keep me posted, have you read "Against the Gods?"

>>17945312
>source please? there's literally no reference to Soros at all

pic related

could be that he added the writing on Soros in an updated edition

>>17943741
>it increases because in order to buy the labor and skills necessary to refine the diamond, one must pay higher wages to the worker than say, a wood cutter
Holy shit, it's almost like you're paying those workers in relation to the amount of labor/skill required to refine the good into something. That's a crazy observation, anon. It's almost like the labor ITSELF is appreciating the goods value!

How can you be this retarded? You literally just said "wrong, it's not more valuable because of the labor put into it, it's more valuable because you have to pay for the labor put into it"

>>17944602
You couldn't be more wrong, anon. Whether you like him or not, Marx reshaped economics and political thought forever. Marx and Engel's work on political economy in particular is still the go to in nearly every related discipline that studies this shit.

>>17945390
this is clearly another book's index, there's no way he only talked about Adam Smith for 2 pages

no other entries match up

thanks for wasting everyone's time moron

>>17945524
we are talking about The Ascent of Money, correct?

>>17945534
no, Debt is what I was referring to

>>17945558
my bad then, if you look above I was speaking about The Ascent of Money when mentioning Soros and Greenspan

>>17945566
honest mistake, just tired of seeing all financial literature being written off by conspiracy hacks

>>17945323
No. Please tell me a bit about it.

>>17941836
based retard

>>17944284
>You aren't punished for not taking on debt
You literally are though. Relatively few people can afford to own houses, so demand isn't particularly strong. Prices are low, which means that it's generally affordable even to rent along with everyone else, because landlords aren't forced to charge exorbitant amounts in order to cover their own expenses. Then, someone starts lending out stolen money, which allows an order of magnitude more people to buy houses. Demand goes up, prices increase, property owners would rather sell than continue charging affordable rates for rent, and enterprising souls take out loans for dozens of houses, which they are forced to rent out at very high prices to cover their own costs. The result is that the price of housing increases by many times, to the point at which no one can really be considered to be living within their means unless they are either very well off (like 90th percentile income), or manage to own their home outright. At this point, for the great majority of people, you're living outside your means either way, but have the option between being able to someday change that, or being stuck with no money AND no equity.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily against the idea of lending, but strongly against fractional reserve banking, which is blatant fraud but has somehow become intrinsically linked to the modern idea of what lending is and how it works.

>>17945713
>fractional reserve banking
QRD?

>>17945713
>To be clear, I'm not necessarily against the idea of lending, but strongly against fractional reserve banking, which is blatant fraud but has somehow become intrinsically linked to the modern idea of what lending is and how it works.
Fractional reserve banking has been the only survivable form of macro finance not because of fraud but because it's inherently superior to meeting demand and surviving than the alternatives were.