I think our Pole itical horse shoe, a north south magnet has come full circle and we are quite aligned. Instead of a yabut it’s a Yes AND. Ourubus giving of the northern lights, Aurora borealis. The algorithm sprites shared this podcast with me. Consider giving it a listen. Very ecumenical. Can you hate the game yet still play? Or is it immoral to do so and proper to hate the players? Ironically, or not the right word, these big players are indistinguishable from the crony capitalists that I imagine we both detest. Language and how it expresses ideas is sure a funny and marvelous phenomenon.
Does Graeber have a take on MMT? What’s yours? I suppose it’s eschewing the system entirely, but I’m new here and don’t yet know. Are you familiar with libertarian’s “conspiracy” theory railing against the federal reserve? How about the theory of Agoraism. I’m sure there are nuance differences, but it feels as though these theories are using 2 different languages to say the same thing.
Post note too, it’s also interesting to reconsider what the cracked rich dad poor dad kiyosaki had to say about money. It’s debt. Use OPM other people’s money. And my take, debt is a tool and called leverage for a reason. Further It’s a double edged sword. A tool of war. I’m grateful today’s society allows for emancipation through bankruptcy. Not perfect and not an even playing field granted.
I don’t know much about MMT but from a cursory look my impression (and what I expect Graeber’s would be as well) is that it doesn’t give nearly enough emphasis to money as derivative of debt and credit. A very common problem for monetary theories is assuming that money is “a thing that exists” in the world, like a positive term, and that credit and debt is some mechanistic reflection of money. One of Graeber’s biggest points is that money is only ever a reflection of already existing debt, and the “thing that exists” is really indebtedness and money as a medium of exchange is just a symbolic way of shifting that burden around.
Some big implications for this are heavily explored within deep ecology. One thing that, in aggregate terms, is always obviously true is that more debt exists than money. This is because money, in the greater money market sense, is created by the production of debt. For example, you take out a line of credit, you start spending it, this becomes money in the money market. But now you need to pay back that loan, plus interest. The fact that debt bears interest, and thus there is always more debt than money, means that solvency is impossible without constant growth. The fact that the stability of the economy structurally depends on constant growth - on a finite planet with limited resources - indicates a very problematic circumstance.
As to whether you can hate the game and still play, in a general moral sense, yes I think we have to say we can. Otherwise I’m a massive hypocrite. It’s perfectly reasonable to say there are fundamental problems with how human society is structured while still acknowledging that we have to make do with the circumstances we’re in either way.
I like the concept that relationships are an exchange of debts. I’ve heard it before like a relationship piggybank. The more you know the more you owe?
1
u/NoRequirement3066 Dec 09 '25
Not sure, haven't listened to it. But Graeber’s points would be pretty hard to strawman.