![]() Mike has a whole wagonload of criticisms of the book, not all of which I disagree with. A review of Debt by an economist in a venue like Jacobin could be an important chance for interdisciplinary bridge-building it’s a pity it turned into an exercise in moat-digging instead. Admittedly it takes some unpacking, but Debt’s key themes are in close harmony with the main themes of heterodox economics work going back to Keynes while the “economics” that Beggs opposes to him represents only the discipline’s more conservative wings. Mike sees Debt as “a move in an interdisciplinary struggle: anthropology against economics.” But most of the key arguments of Debt are better seen as part of an intradisciplinary struggle within economics. Debt is certainly not without its flaws, but I think Jacobin has missed a good opportunity to connect David Graeber’s opus with the broader conversation economics on the Left. The book’s “main arguments,” he says, are “wholly unconvincing.” Mike Beggs read Debt, and he didn’t like it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |