82,853
edits
Debt: The First 5,000 Years: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:—{{author|David Graeber}}}} | :—{{author|David Graeber}}}} | ||
The behavioural economist Uri Gneezy once ran a famous experiment on [[incentives]] at a chain of | The behavioural economist Uri Gneezy once ran a famous experiment on [[incentives]] at a chain of daycare centres in Haifa. In order to incentivise parents to be on time to pick up their kids, they introduced a small but meaningful “late fee” in some of the centres, for parents who were more than ten minutes late. Rather than this cutting reducing late pick-ups, average delinquency in those centres with the fine doubled. The fixed penalty put a value on the inconvenience: it converted a ''moral'' obligation into a ''financial'' one, and in doing so something meaningful was lost. | ||
That something is the motivating force behind this highly entertaining, learned, and stimulating book. David Graeber’s history —and there’s plenty of history, right back to the myth — yes, myth — of the foundation of money in barter — poses this central question: what happens when we reduce our sense of morality and justice to the language of a business deal? | That something is the motivating force behind this highly entertaining, learned, and stimulating book. David Graeber’s history —and there’s plenty of history, right back to the myth — yes, myth — of the foundation of money in barter — poses this central question: what happens when we reduce our sense of morality and justice to the language of a business deal? | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
“What,” Graeber asks in the first chapter, “does it mean when we reduce moral obligations to debts?” | “What,” Graeber asks in the first chapter, “does it mean when we reduce moral obligations to debts?” | ||
Now we denizens of the financial services industry should understand that David Graeber did not come at this question from what we would call a conventional place. He was an anthropologist, not an economist or a historian, and of the anarchist left: he was instrumental in establishing the ''Occupy Wall Street'' movement. But it would be a grave mistake to write off his book as a Marxist screed. There is so much of value here: in challenging conventional, lazy and simplistic ways we have at looking at the world. It is well | Now we denizens of the financial services industry should understand that David Graeber did not come at this question from what we would call a conventional place. He was an anthropologist, not an economist or a historian, and of the anarchist left: he was instrumental in establishing the ''Occupy Wall Street'' movement. But it would be a grave mistake to write off his book as a Marxist screed. There is so much of value here: in challenging conventional, lazy and simplistic ways we have at looking at the world. It is well researched and thoughtfully argued. Graeber perfectly understood the conventional wisdom. It is just that he was ... what’s the word? — oh that’s it: a ''contrarian''. | ||
The best thing to do is just pick out some | The best thing to do is just pick out some choice points. | ||
===Everyday communism=== | ===Everyday communism=== | ||
Playfully, Graeber introduces the notion of “everyday communism” — he could, less provocatively, have called it “communalism”, but where’s the fun in that — as an alternative to an economic life of sterile, impersonal, perfectly quantified transactions. By this he did not mean Bolshevism, but something more prosaic: our general disposition help each other out without question where the relative personal cost is not great. This stance: to be a [[good egg]] — to co-operate and not defect — is deeper and more critical to interpersonal relationships than are the outcomes of economic transactions which, rather, ''depend'' on that basic layer of probity. “If someone fixing a broken water pipe says, ‘Hand me the wrench,’ his co-worker will not, generally speaking, say, “And what do I get for it?’” | Playfully, Graeber introduces the notion of “everyday communism” — he could, less provocatively, have called it “communalism”, but where’s the fun in that — as an alternative to an economic life of sterile, impersonal, perfectly quantified transactions. By this, he did not mean Bolshevism, but something more prosaic: our general disposition help each other out without question where the relative personal cost is not great. This stance: to be a [[good egg]] — to co-operate and not defect — is deeper and more critical to interpersonal relationships than are the outcomes of economic transactions which, rather, ''depend'' on that basic layer of probity. “If someone fixing a broken water pipe says, ‘Hand me the wrench,’ his co-worker will not, generally speaking, say, “And what do I get for it?’” | ||
Yet monetarist orthodoxy cannot see it, and therefore treats it as imaginary. | Yet monetarist orthodoxy cannot see it, and therefore treats it as imaginary. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
This, it seems to me, goes deep. It resonates strongly with observations by a diverse range of impressive writers – James Scott, Jane Jacobs, Rory Sutherland, W. Edwards Deming Nassim Taleb — that far from being indicators of of weakness and a feeble governance, a certain looseness — planned slack and redundancy — in fact speak to confidence in one’s purpose. They are vital to the durability and flexibility of any enterprise. | This, it seems to me, goes deep. It resonates strongly with observations by a diverse range of impressive writers – James Scott, Jane Jacobs, Rory Sutherland, W. Edwards Deming Nassim Taleb — that far from being indicators of of weakness and a feeble governance, a certain looseness — planned slack and redundancy — in fact speak to confidence in one’s purpose. They are vital to the durability and flexibility of any enterprise. | ||
This is Graeber’s point: we should always leave something on the table. It leaves something unsaid; it builds trust; it strengthens ties; it reinforces the sense of relationship and personal obligation. The [[reductionist]] yen to convert all of life | This is Graeber’s point: we should always leave something on the table. It leaves something unsaid; it builds trust; it strengthens ties; it reinforces the sense of relationship and personal obligation. The [[reductionist]] yen to convert all of life to a ledger of account — to comprehensively ''monetise'' it — is folly. You literally cannot put a value on “doing the right thing”. The economic equivalent — “discharging one’s obligations” is to do the bare minimum. It is is a “cheapest to deliver” option. When the bare minimum fully discharges your contractual obligation, your relationship is moot. As we have observed many times in these pages, the ''potential'' forward value of a business [[relationship]] necessarily exceeds the present value of any transaction. | ||
Of course, the smartest firms realise this; only, over their accountants’ objections, whose ledger does not. | Of course, the smartest firms realise this; only, over their accountants’ objections, whose ledger does not. | ||