Hub of Reason

« first day (3420 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1365 days later) »

1:23 AM

I don't think it's a straw man precisely because of the absurd hypothetical given in the other answer: "Indirect exchange becomes more necessary as division of labor increases..." which does seem to posit this kind of primordial state of barter, without providing any evidence whatsoever.

the article i cite quotes Aristotle, so i think these just-so stories are quite old

7 hours later…

IMSoP

8:11 AM

I don't see why that's "absurd"

your answer mentions "Mauss' analysis of pre-monetary gifting", but it doesn't actually say what that analysis is, so it's really hard for those of us who don't already know the topic to understand what you're talking about

is the counter-claim that no two humans ever directly exchanged goods without some form of currency? is it that such direct exchange never formed a coherent system? is it that such exchange happened, but no earlier than the first indirect exchange?

gerrit

@fredsbend A formalised quid quo pro sounds like debt to me, which AIUI is Graebers point.

I did something for you, you owe me.

IMSoP

that feels like a circular definition - "if money is debt, debt is money"

it also doesn't rule out that debt was created because barter is impractical

gerrit

It's a question of definition.

IMSoP

indeed; the whole question breaks down unless you can say what "inventing money" means

if "inventing money" means "inventing debt", then yes, of course, money and debt will arise at the same time, because you've defined them to be the same thing

if "inventing money" means "trading for something you don't really need because you know you can trade it to someone else", then anything other than the most direct barter becomes "money", so you can "prove" that no barter pre-dated money

I'm sure Graeber has a definition that is subtler than either of these, and makes his thesis coherent, but none of the answers or comments so far has been willing to say what it is

5 hours later…

Nzall

1:25 PM

Is it on-topic to ask whether the events of an ongoing Twitter thread are plausible to have happened? I'm referring to the RS Archer (twitter.com/archer_rs) thread about the Brexiteer who went to a small mayor in France to "fix Brexit"

Nostradamus

2:15 PM

Q: Can I ask whether the events recounted in a Twitter thread could plausibly have happened and/or match up with reality?

https://twitter.com/archer_rs claims to be an author who is recounting a Brexit related tale (told in 2 parts, starting from https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1277505330885386240 and continuing at https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1280444544371372033). There is a lot of skepticism about whe...

fredsbend

2:58 PM

@gerrit That's been one of my points from early on. But qpq as debt is an interesting outlook. If the quid comes today, and I expect the quo a year later, debt it's certainly the word.

If I expect the quo immediately, debt is not the word.

@IMSoP And the several nuances between those extremes as well are in play.

5 hours later…

Nostradamus

8:21 PM

Q: 2020 Moderator Election Results

Skeptics's third moderator election has come to a close, the votes have been tallied and the two new moderators are: They'll be joining the existing crew shortly—please thank them for volunteering, and share your assistance and advice with them as they learn the ropes! For details on how the vo...