What Economists Still Don’t Get About the 2008 Crisis
It&#x27;s a pleasure to read an article by a writer who understands of the history economic thought, though I suspect I will disagree with him on a lot of things.<p>Anyway, this is interesting. I&#x27;ll look up these economists.<p>On the face of it, I think it&#x27;s interesting how economists are hesitant to consider money real. Money is fictional to most economists. What&#x27;s real is consumer surplus, utility or some other abstract way of reasoning about consumption.  ...skeptical eyebrow.<p>I liked David Graeber&#x27;s book about money. First, because I like his intellectual shit-stirring. Second, because I think he&#x27;s right about the origin of money. Money evolved from debt. Debt did not evolve from money, as liberal 17&#x2F;18th century thinkers assumed.<p>Beyond this relatively simple point, I don&#x27;t think he had much of anything concrete. But, as he talked about little local revolts and the role debt played... idk. Makes you think.<p>In any case, from a reactive european perspective in the post financial crisis world... I suspect that what business cycles <i>are</i> is a system wide insolvency. It turns out tat some of the money isn&#x27;t <i>real</i>. That is, some of the debts floating around the economy are not going to be paid. The dollar isn&#x27;t worth a dollar, your bank doesn&#x27;t really have your money, the stock will never pay a dividend, the national debt will never be repaid, someone isn&#x27;t as rich as they think they are, the mortgages are in arrears.<p>The crisis, whether it&#x27;s a on banks, devaluation of assets, currency inflation... this is a bankruptcy proceeding, a negotiation determining who really owes who what, given that not everyone can get paid.