tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post6050651949585738749..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: The Origins of MoneyLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41027338465608278212016-03-30T07:43:41.264-07:002016-03-30T07:43:41.264-07:00AWESOME man!!!
Can't wait to read your thought...AWESOME man!!!<br />Can't wait to read your thoughts on this!!! :D :) :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55108611606091422502016-03-30T07:10:53.261-07:002016-03-30T07:10:53.261-07:00My analysis here:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentu...My analysis here:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/03/george-selgin-versus-david-graeber-on.html<br /><br />Selgin's revised Mengerian view of money's origins is Karl Marx's but stripped of the LTV.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-71426113033380668102016-03-29T14:54:11.556-07:002016-03-29T14:54:11.556-07:00Sure thing.
So it appears it all started here.
Wh...Sure thing.<br /><br />So it appears it all started here.<br />When the Atlantic did this article (which I was intrigued that the truth had gotten out) :P<br /><br />http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/<br /><br />Then Selgin this month posted this.<br /><br />http://www.alt-m.org/2016/03/15/myth-myth-barter/<br /><br />And then this happened on Twitter:<br /><br />https://twitter.com/GeorgeSelgin/status/710152681961234432<br /><br />Then Selgin did this:<br /><br />http://www.alt-m.org/2016/03/24/graeber-once-more/<br /><br />A few others jumped in to increase some flames:<br /><br />https://twitter.com/barryDstocker/status/711561194855927809<br /><br />And I'm not sure if Graeber is going to come back at him or not.<br /><br />I guess it wasn't so much a debate, just more a quick battle where Selgin attacks Graeber's argument and Graeber's character a little too it seems, and Graeber attacks back... I think Selgin wants more to enter into a debate but not quite sure what Graeber wants to do next.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27127336736443758752016-03-29T11:40:06.230-07:002016-03-29T11:40:06.230-07:00Do you have a link to this David Graeber and Georg...Do you have a link to this David Graeber and George Selgin debate?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17821680319029094362016-03-29T11:35:35.416-07:002016-03-29T11:35:35.416-07:00Cool info on this blog.
LK have you seen the rece...Cool info on this blog.<br /><br />LK have you seen the recent battle between David Graeber and George Selgin?<br /><br />Is that something you would be interested in posting about at all? <br />Or maybe that doesn't interest you as much at this point - kinda interesting though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43809786295187257172012-01-09T20:52:17.200-08:002012-01-09T20:52:17.200-08:00Argosy Jones,
This ludicrous troll is the worst I...Argosy Jones,<br /><br />This ludicrous troll is the worst I've ever seen.<br /><br />Gene Callahan may be on to something: <br /><br />http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/01/couple-debt-updates.html?showComment=1325816136764#c7672460519914875997Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-21502056212208890802012-01-09T19:52:16.353-08:002012-01-09T19:52:16.353-08:00"Huh? MajorFreedomChristofDavid? What the hec...<i>"Huh? MajorFreedomChristofDavid? What the heck? You seem to have me confused for someone else.</i><br /><br />LOL. Murray would be proud of you. I mean the five of you of course.Argosy Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-64550509555192205312012-01-09T10:00:27.041-08:002012-01-09T10:00:27.041-08:00Money isn't sent down from heaven. At the time...<i>Money isn't sent down from heaven. At the time, it had to be mined. When money is mined, it had to be valued in itself as a commodity to be used for purposes other than money. <br /><br />That is how to understand the regression theorem. It's a logical necessity.</i><br /><br />How do tally sticks fit into the regression theorem? Whereas they were used by many major cultures around the world, I would assume it should say something about them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47206253746755576062012-01-09T07:53:00.763-08:002012-01-09T07:53:00.763-08:00By the way, the last comment applies to Major_Free...By the way, the last comment applies to Major_Freedom/PeterS, not to other commentators above, so there's no confusion.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57592877321476295992012-01-09T07:48:04.351-08:002012-01-09T07:48:04.351-08:00The sheer level of your cultish, pig-headed lying ...The sheer level of your cultish, pig-headed lying is confirmed by even a quick read of what Robert Murphy said about Graeber:<br /><br /><i>In a crucial passage, Graeber says:<br /><br />> "[T]he flaw in the barter theory of the <br />> origin of money is that barter presumes<br />> SPOT TRANSACTIONS. There is no reason <br />> whatsoever to presume that neighbors would <br />> limit themselves to spot transactions in<br />> dealing with one another. However, if one<br />> does not presume spot transactions, then <br />> the notorious problem of the “double <br />> coincidence of wants” does not occur. You <br />> end up with a system of broad, <br />> non-enumerated credits, and this is<br />> precisely what those who actually did <br />> research on communities that do not use <br />> money did find."<br /><br /><b>This is an excellent point, and Graeber is right: In the standard exposition of a barter economy, economists typically think in terms of spot transactions.</b> But in principle, there’s no reason to restrict ourselves in this way. If we can imagine a farmer trading a pig for an axe, we can also imagine a farmer trading a pig for a promise to deliver an axe in two weeks.<br /><br />Graeber is also right that the possibility of credit transactions expands the scope of a moneyless economy, and mitigates the problem of finding a double coincidence of wants. </i><br /><br />http://blog.mises.org/18371/murphy-replies-to-david-graeber-on-menger-and-money/<br /><br />The 2 crucial points:<br /><br />(1) Murphy, just as I have said above, is clear that "in the standard exposition of a barter economy, economists typically think in terms of spot transactions."<br /><br />(2) Murphy also says that debt/credit transaction do not "eliminate the problem" of double coincidence of wants - sure, they don't <i>completely and utterly</i> eliminate it, but they certainly <i>significantly diminish it</i> ("mitigates the problem", he says).<br /><br />Too bad you are exposed for what you are: a liar and a fraud.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-44661633871685314002012-01-09T07:38:15.185-08:002012-01-09T07:38:15.185-08:00I don't really disagree with your claims, alth...I don't really disagree with your claims, although I think you have to read the full Wealth of Nations in order to appreciate Adam Smith's theory of money. For instance, you are quoting from book 1 chapter 4, but Smith also has a very interesting (and much more extensive) chapter describing the complex workings of the system of bills of exchange, so he was by no means focused on gold and silver as money (See book 2 chapter 2). In this way he was different from Menger, who never discusses credit. Like Henry Dunning Macleod (who I see someone has already quoted), Smith was comfortable with credit as money.<br /><br />The existence of Henry Dunning Macleod, as well as George Berkeley and James Steuart, disconfirms the thesis that classical and neo-classical economists were uniformly metallists. All advocated to various degrees a credit theory of money. Jevons credits Macleod for laying the framework for marginal utility calculus, so he was surely neoclassical.<br /><br />The "origins of money" debate is interesting but I don't know how important it is. I think it's perfectly logical to adopt a Mengerian metallist approach and a Macleodean credit approach, modifying each just enough so that they can be amalgamated. Let the anthropologists take care of the chronological order of things.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9916622249262946952012-01-09T07:29:35.533-08:002012-01-09T07:29:35.533-08:00"How does this passage EXCLUDE credit exchang...<i>"How does this passage EXCLUDE credit exchanges? He just says exchanges. The butcher, brewer, and baker can make exchanges on credit. Smith isn't saying that ONLY spot barter exchanges are possible. "</i><br /><br />He is assuming direct barter - barter spot transactions - here obviously, for the simple reason that a credit/debt transaction (or an exchange of present goods for future goods/services) would <i>overcome</i> the double coincidence of wants problem: the butcher can give his meat to the baker now, and the baker will promise to repay the <i>mutuum</i> loan (= loan for consumption) <i>in the future</i> with some commodity the butcher designated (e.g., meat now for nails in 2 months time). The baker now has a time period to find whatever commodity the butcher designated that the baker himself <i>does not have now.</i>Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-32233522452184329912012-01-09T07:21:28.432-08:002012-01-09T07:21:28.432-08:00"The former consequently would be glad to dis..."The former consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them."<br /><br />How does this passage EXCLUDE credit exchanges? He just says exchanges. The butcher, brewer, and baker can make exchanges on credit. Smith isn't saying that ONLY spot barter exchanges are possible.PeterSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-3591368272882747062012-01-09T07:18:39.457-08:002012-01-09T07:18:39.457-08:00Your idiotic attempt to deny that direct barter - ...Your idiotic attempt to deny that direct barter - that is, barter spot transactions - is not what is imagined by Smith, Menger, Mises etc. is totally destroyed by the fact that their main argument for the emergence of the most saleable commodity as a medium of exchange DEPENDS on the double co-incidence of wants problem: in a credit/debt transaction - exchange of present goods for future goods/services or even social relations - the double co-incidence of wants problem is AVOIDED.<br /><br />If they really include credit/debt transactions, and think credit/debt transactions as a type of barter can also lead to money, the whole basis of their argument is undermined.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-32525116708322454012012-01-09T07:03:26.437-08:002012-01-09T07:03:26.437-08:00"There is not one reference to spot transacti...<i>"There is not one reference to spot transactions in Smith's passage. "</i><br /><br />You are a contemptible liar:<br /><br /><i>"The former consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity. <b>But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them.</b> [i.e, direct barter - LK] The butcher has more meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange," etc.</i>Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-88834587528684472272012-01-09T07:00:06.508-08:002012-01-09T07:00:06.508-08:00"Money isn't sent down from heaven. At th...<i>"Money isn't sent down from heaven. At the time, it had to be mined. When money is mined, it had to be valued in itself as a commodity to be used for purposes other than money. "</i><br /><br />Garbage: the money thing could be cattle, cowrie shells, etc, not merely mined things.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66362479691433971122012-01-09T06:58:00.991-08:002012-01-09T06:58:00.991-08:00"It is that something that Menger and Smith a...<i>"It is that something that Menger and Smith are referring to when they say that barter precedes money."</i><br /><br />They are not referring to credit/debt transactions, and this is your persistent, laughable lie.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-14257422784511179262012-01-09T06:56:45.225-08:002012-01-09T06:56:45.225-08:00"No, (1) is impossible. The data don't pr...<i>"No, (1) is impossible. The data don't prove it. The data can only be incomplete. Collectivist economic institutions cannot create and impose a commodity to be money ex nihilo that wasn't already valued and exchanged for its own sake in some use other than money. This is a logical truth. "</i><br /><br />A statement demontrating the intellectual bankrupcy of the Austrian arm-chair praxeologist: the data disprove what I'm saying, so therefore "the data is necessarily incomplete/inaccurate."!<br /><br />Fit only for the deluded, the stupid, the ignoramus, and the stark raving mad.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-60355872976431267652012-01-09T06:46:12.781-08:002012-01-09T06:46:12.781-08:00Lord Keynes:
"The empircal evidence on how m...Lord Keynes:<br /><br />"The empircal evidence on how money can emerge shows:"<br /><br />"(1) invention by temple/palace planners in collectivist economic institutions (Mesopotamia/Egypt);"<br /><br />"(2) wergild social practices;"<br /><br />"(3) emergence by religion/sacrifice of some commodity for its religious value used as a unit of account, then prices denominated in it."<br /><br />No, (1) is impossible. The data don't prove it. The data can only be incomplete. Collectivist economic institutions cannot create and impose a commodity to be money ex nihilo that wasn't already valued and exchanged for its own sake in some use other than money. This is a logical truth. If an anthropologist sees data that somehow show money is created by fiat outside of barter, then the data is necessarily incomplete/inaccurate.<br /><br />(3) is just the regression theorem. FIRST the comodity was valued in itself, i.e. as a barter good, through religion/sacrifice. THEN it was used as a medium of exchange, after which "money prices" in that commodity formed.<br /><br />"Your ramblings have no force, no refutation of anything above has been achieved."<br /><br />On the contrary, YOUR ramblings have not only not refuted the regression theorem, but your ramblings have also disproven your own position against the regression theorem.<br /><br />Nothing has been "achieved" by Graeber other than a historical tally of various events. His a priori economic theory is flawed, and that is why he misconstrues the historical data.<br /><br />You're getting hung up on the whole credit versus spot thing, but the regression theorem is only about barter preceding money only. Credit and spot only tell us WHEN barter exchanges and WHEN money exchanges are finalized. Credit itself is not an alternative to barter or money.<br /><br />Go back the drawing board.PeterSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-49645585263258339032012-01-09T06:41:49.705-08:002012-01-09T06:41:49.705-08:00Lord Keynes:
What anthropologists have in fact ob...Lord Keynes:<br /><br /><i>What anthropologists have in fact observed where money is not used is not a system of explicit lending and borrowing, but a very broad system of non-enumerated credits and debts. In most such societies, if a neighbor wants some possession of yours, it usually suffices simply to praise it (‘what a magnificent pig!’); the response is to immediately hand it over, accompanied by much insistence that this is a gift and the donor certainly would never want anything in return. In fact, the recipient now owes him a favor. Now, he might well just sit on the favor, since it’s nice to have others beholden to you, or he might demand something of an explicitly non-material kind (‘you know, my son is in love with your daughter...’) He might ask for another pig, or something he considers roughly equivalent in kind. But it’s almost impossible to see how any of this would lead to a system whereby it’s possible to measure proportional value.</i><br /><br />"Non-enumerated credits and debts" based on the expectation that they will be settled by exchanging either barter commodities or the money commodity.<br /><br />Credits mean a promise to pay something. It is that something that Menger and Smith are referring to when they say that barter precedes money.<br /><br />"Murphy then goes on to produce a straw man saying that a system where people borrow things from one another and then turn to political authorities to regulate the system would not produce money. True enough, but it seems a bit irrelevant considering (a) I never say people would be “borrowing” from each other in the way he describes, (b) I never attribute any role to political authorities in this process, and (c) rather than saying the informal system of favors I do describe would lead to the invention of money, I explicitly say that it would not."<br /><br />Red herring. This is all besides your idiotic assertion that the regression theorem of money can ever be refuted by empirical data, if an anthropologist finds that credit for explicitly unnamed goods or services, somehow can precede or transform into money, without the existence of bartering of the monetary commodity first. <br /><br />Money isn't sent down from heaven. At the time, it had to be mined. When money is mined, it had to be valued in itself as a commodity to be used for purposes other than money. <br /><br />That is how to understand the regression theorem. It's a logical necessity.<br /><br />"An economy mainly run on the non-enumerated credit/debt transactions will probably NOT developed money."<br /><br />Right, it will STAY as barter, which is exactly consistent with the regression theorem. The regression theorem doesn't argue that barter MUST give way to money. Only that IF money arises, it must have been through barter. Whether the barter is carried out on spot or on credit is totally and completely irrelevant to the regression theorem.PeterSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-71670442178639477322012-01-09T06:41:15.518-08:002012-01-09T06:41:15.518-08:00Lord Keynes:
"PeterS/Major_Freedom/Christof/...Lord Keynes:<br /><br /><i>"PeterS/Major_Freedom/Christof/David,"</i><br /><br /><i>"Don't think I don't recognise your writing style and trolling nonsense. In fact, you've just said the same thing on the Krugman in Wonderland blog."</i><br /><br />Huh? MajorFreedomChristofDavid? What the heck? You seem to have me confused for someone else. Anderson's blog is where that I FOUND the above criticism of your nonsense, so I posted it here. Major's right.<br /><br />"In these passages, Smith didn't claim that money arose out of barter SPOT transactions. He correctly pointed out that money arises out of barter transactions. That is to say, money arises out of bartering on spot AND bartering on credit."<br /><br /><i>"There is not one reference to credit/debt transactions in Smith's passage: you're lying. Smith is thinking of direct barter, just like Menger (1892. “On the Origin of Money,” Economic Journal 2: 238–255.)."</i><br /><br />There is not one reference to spot transactions in Smith's passage. YOU'RE lying by claiming he can only mean spot. <br /><br /><i>"Furthermore, in case it isn't clear, I have in mind (as I have said above) the most extreme statements of the barter-origin, as in Rothbard:"</i><br /><br /><i>"[sc. Mises’s] Regression Theorem also shows that money, in any society, can only become established by a market process emerging from barter. Money cannot be established by a social contract, by government imposition, or by artificial schemes proposed by economists."</i><br /><br />Notice there is no requirement that barter exchanges be ONLY spot in Rothbard either.<br /><br />"If there are historical cases of credit preceding money, then all that is showing is<br /><br />barter (credit) > money (credit or spot)<br /><br />That is CONSISTENT with Menger and Smith."<br /><br /><i>anthropologists and other heterodox economists aren't arguing that money arose from IOUs or non-enumerated credit/debt transactions:</i><br /><br />I didn't claim that they did you dishonest snake. I said that they incorrectly claimed that credit is an alternative to either barter or money. In reality, credit is a form of barter exchanges and a form of money exchanges. People can trade barter on spot or on credit. People can trade money on spot or on credit. People CANNOT trade either barter or money for "credit" as if it is a thing that finalizes exchanges.<br /><br />Pay attention numbskull.PeterSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47713284615202663092012-01-09T05:46:24.284-08:002012-01-09T05:46:24.284-08:00Lord Keynes: I would be careful not to lump Adam S...Lord Keynes: I would be careful not to lump Adam Smith with neoclassical economists or Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises, as he was not a supporter of Subjective Expected Utility or the Benthamite calculus. Smith disagreed with Bentham on speculation. But as for the money issue, I think Smith's analysis was pretty good for it's time.Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26777695764319421372012-01-09T03:38:28.604-08:002012-01-09T03:38:28.604-08:00Unlearningecon,
Thanks for the link. I just read ...Unlearningecon,<br /><br />Thanks for the link. I just read this:<br /><br />"Review Of David Graeber's 5,000 Years of Debt (part 1)," "December 05, 2011<br />http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2011/12/review-of-david-graebers-5000-years-of.html<br /><br />I find it a bit unfair. Quotations of Gavin Kennedy:<br />-----<br /><i>"Studies of human non-kin relationships show the prevalence of reciprocation exchanges. Reading Chapter 1, I expected to find this phenomenon integrated or at least mentioned in David’s analysis. It wasn’t."</i><br /><br />The <i>relevant</i> chapter of Graeber's book is chapter 2.<br /><br />In chapter 2, it is <i>perfectly</i> clear that Graeber <i>does</i> focus very carefully on "non-kin relationships show[ing] the prevalence of reciprocation exchanges" - it is the whole basis of his analysis, when he talsk about gift exchange economies and non-enumerated debt/credit relations.<br /><br />Two points:<br /><br />(1) the charge leveled against economists is that they have been fixated on money (allegedly) emerging from barter spot transactions, when societies odminated by barter spot transactions appear to be rare when we look at real world money-less societies: just three “primitive” economies where barter was predominant have been found (Crump 1981: 54). <br /><br />(2) It appears many money-less societies are dominated by non-enumerated debt/credit relations. In these societies barter is probably minimal: there is no reason to invent money at all. Why? Because with non-enumerated debt/credits or rough IOU exchanges, there is no significant double coincidence of wants problem.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-78409070314625095142012-01-09T03:14:15.918-08:002012-01-09T03:14:15.918-08:00Gavin Kennedy has a lengthy 6 part review of Graeb...Gavin Kennedy has a lengthy 6 part review of Graeber, in which he takes issue with his characterisations of Smith: <br /><br />http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2011/12/review-of-david-graebers-5000-years-of.htmlUnlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-67641432751642592302012-01-09T01:24:49.910-08:002012-01-09T01:24:49.910-08:00LK,
Thanks for your quick reply. I've read th...LK,<br /><br />Thanks for your quick reply. I've read through your other post on Menger and the origin of money, and especially the links you provided to the interview with David Graeber and his exchanges with the Austrians, which I found quite fascinating. Although my interests are not primarily historical or anthropological, Graebner does provide a very interesting perspective, and his historical examples are a good counterpoint to the explanations provided by standard economics. I think one of the things that comes from taking such a wide, historical point of view, is that it makes one aware that since money is a social construct, its role, functions and importance evolve throughout time and space, and are in no way constant. This is in stark contrast with the "scientific" aspirations of many economic schools (esp. the apriori Austrians) which like to deal with "universal categories", which are independent of time, place or social organization. Hence the violent hostility from that quarter.<br /><br />As I've said, I noticed that CE has resurrected his blog some time ago, but from what I've been able to see he mostly deals with current affairs, to which I have little to contribute. I enjoyed the first phase of his blog, because it was a civil forum for exchanging views, and I liked many of the contributors who posted comments there. At that time I was still at an early stage of my economic investigations, as was Cynicus. Over time our views seem to have drifted in opposite directions. His seem to have turned more into some eclectic form of neoclassical orthodoxy, mine have been moving away, so the opportunities for constructive engagement have been greatly reduced.<br /><br />MattMattInShanghainoreply@blogger.com