undefined | Better HN

0 pointsscott_s12y ago0 comments

I believe you mean "Debt: The First 5000 Years". I'm still reading it. It's good for understanding these ideas, but it spends a lot of time in the beginning in "the language of debt" and how it relates to religions. That is interesting in its own right, but not why I picked up the book.

0 comments

nunb12y ago

yeah, that religious part was a bit far-fetched. (As a hindu/brahmin I LOL'd).

I've read several different theories of money and I don't find the debt vs coincidence-of-wants bifurcation that Graeber alludes to such a big difference in practice.

He pretty much hangs his whole approach off of that, but the two can be reconciled quite easily in my mind.

I wish everyone would read David Graeber (first) and then Detlev Schlichter.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsscott_s12y ago0 comments

0 comments

nunb12y ago

yeah, that religious part was a bit far-fetched. (As a hindu/brahmin I LOL'd).

I've read several different theories of money and I don't find the debt vs coincidence-of-wants bifurcation that Graeber alludes to such a big difference in practice.

He pretty much hangs his whole approach off of that, but the two can be reconciled quite easily in my mind.

I wish everyone would read David Graeber (first) and then Detlev Schlichter.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse