Having read the interview with David Graeber that Robert Murphy addressed in his recent daily article a few weeks ago, I am still astounded at the utter incomprehensibility of his theory. He appears to want to make some economic theory based on the idea of gift giving. However, the gifts he describes to support his case for his theory of the origin of money, no less, are not really gifts. They are simply a variation of direct barter that attempts to overcome the shortcomings of bartering. He also seems to be an anthropological creationist. What I mean by that is he assumes that human society and cooperation sprang into being with the "invention" of writing. What are others' views on David Graeber's apparently confused theory and Murphy's response?
Wrong or right that theory is nothing new, and probably the most accepted anthropological view...so he is no hack, just a non economist working with the best theories he has. Frankly if you have any knowledge of anciet lit or sources I don't know how you can't see at least where he is comming from.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Elaborate. Which anthropologists agree with this view? Can you even describe what his view is because he can't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
I asked you to describe it, not a wiki article. It's basically large extended families and people operating as a family. Seems to be incredibly economically inefficient. This contradicts the fact that there were markets and merchants very early on in history, see The Phoenicians and the West.
"What is more, it is now on record that, in Mesopotamia, market and price fluctuations coexisted with systems of redistribution and reciprocity from the end of the fourth millenium BC." Aubet, The Phonicians and the West, p. 84.
see The Phoenicians and the West
See pages 132 -138 for a discussion of Gift exchange (which also brings up Mauss) . My only point is this is nothing in left field/ of a dubious nature for historians or anthropologists. If he is wrong, so be it, but to call him a hack seems to imply a dubious nature. "Gift-Exchange" theories are old hat, and Austrian economics, right or wrong is heterodox theory, give people a break.
If you have any other books on ancient near eastern / mediterranian history, or any ancient epics, lit - or whatever - I'll try to point out where the historian will almost always bring up Gift Exchange if you want. I can't speak much for China or India though, as I know next to nothing of them.
Also, how solid a narrative do you think one can construct in this time era? You can't do a priori history. You can look at the logic and structure of the laws of economics and come up with a plausible narrative, which Menger did, and that's about it...and besides that it doesn't matter anyway, we still have "exact laws" for economics, who cares what came from where and why, no one should have a horse in the race on this this is just a history of exchange.