NT: I find the claim that his analysis loses a lot of historical specificity kind of odd. To me it seems like his greatest strength is being able to cover large periods without oversimplifying their specific, individual conditions. Where did this claim that Graeber sees capitalism as not unique in any come from? i also would like to know what the big problem is with Chartalism is. it should be noted that even modern Chartalists (especially because of the influence of Minsky) hold money to be mostly endogenous. has anyone read this collection? http://www.amazon.com/Marxs-Theory-Money-Modern-Appraisals/dp/1403936412 . I think our discussion of money would be much advanced after a reading of it, especially the chapter about Marx's rejection of credit theories of money.
CB:"The Neolithic or new stone age is a period in which barter and commodity exchange without money or credit probably actually existed."
NT:what basis is there for that? when you were a kid, did your parents barter with you? why would a small knit community practice barter with each other? I see no evidence for this assertion. That's the whole point of Graeber's book...
I can't recommend enough the compilation of conference books Hudson has put together over the years. I think there is some serious lack of familiarity with the academic literature surrounding these early civilizations.
On a related note, can someone please point me to where Graeber says that credit works under capitalism exactly as it has in all earlier societies? I feel as if i didn't read the same book as all of you did. -- -Nathan Tankus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------