Talk of debt had Washington gridlocked and permeated the national and international conversation for much of the summer But the debate over what to do about debt is nothing new according to David Graeber the author of a new book Debt The First 5000 Years Need to Know host Alison Stewart talks with Graeber about our misconceptions about debt and why it plays such a large role in history
David Graeber is an American anthropologist and anarchist who currently holds the position of Reader in Social Anthropology at Goldsmiths, University of London. He was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, although Yale controversially declined to rehire him, and his term there ended in June 2007. Graeber has a history of social and political activism, including his role in protests against the World Economic Forum in New York City in 2002, membership in the labor union Industrial Workers of the World, and an early role in Occupy Wall Street. He coined the phrase 'the 99%"
His new book, Debt: The First 5000 years is here.
http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1933633867
17 Comments
dystopianfuturetodayNot the most exiting subject in the world, but this is an interesting interview. *promote
siftbotSelf promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 1:53pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.
bobknight33Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.
Spacedog79says...Commodity backed currency solves nothing when the elites own all of it. In fact it makes it even easier for them to manipulate the volume of currency, which has been the big problem with the fiat money we have today. So long as it cannot be counterfeited and it is issued by representatives of the people at no debt, fiat money is the ideal medium of exchange.
Boise_Lib>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard. He is wrong.
Boise_LibOne theory holds that Julius Caesar wanted to enact a Roman wide debt forgiveness (he was personally very much in debt) and that was one of the reasons for his assassination.
siftbotThe thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.
GenjiKilpatrick@bobknight33
You're wrong.
Money isn't real. Therefore, the debt ceiling isn't either.
Edgeman2112>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.
So you don't have a house?
NetRunnerIt's almost as if facts and reason roll off you like water off a duck's back.
>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.
bobknight33So are you saying that there is NO limit to the debt ceiling?
If that is the case why doesn't the government end poverty, provide free healthcare, and pick up the food tab for its citizens?
You argument is as bogus as Obama birth certificate.
You are right about money not being real since is is based on nothing except what you and I decide. But sooner or later with every increasing debt causes you and I to have a government enforced IOU which is currently around $50K for ever man woman and child. So I ask you who pays that bill?
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@bobknight33
You're wrong.
Money isn't real. Therefore, the debt ceiling isn't either.
bobknight33Yes I currently paying a loan on a house.
The difference is that I am not putting that bill on the backs of others to pay.
Our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.
>> ^Edgeman2112:
>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.
So you don't have a house?
heropsychoSo, he has a well grounded argument. Epic argument fail...
>> ^bobknight33:
You argument is as bogus as Obama birth certificate.
heropsychoThe government borrowed massive amounts of money to pay for pretty much every war it's been in. By your logic, we shouldn't have fought the Axis Powers in WWII because that would have put the bill on the backs of others to pay.
Just stop, your arguments fail basic historical examples that prove it's overly simplistic and moronic. By your logic, the government should never borrow money. The US debt is a problem, but to never borrow money is utterly ridiculous.
>> ^bobknight33:
Yes I currently paying a loan on a house.
The difference is that I am not putting that bill on the backs of others to pay.
Our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.
>> ^Edgeman2112:
>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.
So you don't have a house?
bobknight33From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.
Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.
You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?
>> ^heropsycho:
The government borrowed massive amounts of money to pay for pretty much every war it's been in. By your logic, we shouldn't have fought the Axis Powers in WWII because that would have put the bill on the backs of others to pay.
Just stop, your arguments fail basic historical examples that prove it's overly simplistic and moronic. By your logic, the government should never borrow money. The US debt is a problem, but to never borrow money is utterly ridiculous.
>> ^bobknight33:
Yes I currently paying a loan on a house.
The difference is that I am not putting that bill on the backs of others to pay.
Our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.
>> ^Edgeman2112:
>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.
So you don't have a house?
heropsychoDid you not read what I wrote? I'm pretty sure I said the national debt is a problem. My issue with you is your rationale for the national debt is overly simplistic and utterly ridiculous. OH NOEZ! The average taxpayer owes 137K if the national debt is broken down per taxpayer, and the overwhelming majority of Americans don't have 137K lying around to pay that. Say, do most Americans have 50K laying around? No. So if the debt were cut in third roughly, surely it wouldn't be a problem. See? The rationale doesn't hold up. Most Americans don't have 10K laying around either, but if that were the debt per taxpayer, the national debt wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention the fact that wealth is concentrated in this country, too. Granted, most people don't have 137K laying around, but you know who has millions upon millions laying around? Guys like Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. The stat you threw out doesn't mean a damn thing. It just sounds bad.
That's the kind of crap that makes discussing something like this with you utterly impossible. You don't care if the national debt is truly a problem. You WANT it to be a big problem that must be dealt with immediately, and THE ONLY WAY to deal with it is... survey says... reduce spending. NO TAX INCREASES!!! EVER!!!
It's a pointless discussion. You've already made up your mind the national debt is a problem that must be dealt with like a crisis, with only one way to deal with it. Any rational person would look at this issue and conclude that even if it is huge problem, (which by the way, since you can't apparently read, I DO think it's a problem, but does not need to be dealt with in extreme measures, or unilaterally with spending cuts only) cutting spending isn't the only solution. I also know that we've run up historical deficits in our past and came out the other end a stronger nation. I also know that the vast majority of the current deficit has been caused by the Iraqi and Afghan wars, by the Bush tax cuts (which actually caused more debt than those wars did, and a collapsing economy.
Comparison between POLICIES of Bush vs Obama as contributors to the national debt:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif
Sorry, but that's the truth. The reality is we spent ourselves out in two wars and cutting taxes to ridiculous proportions.
As a side note, I just did my taxes. I'm married with no kids, my wife doesn't work due to medical reasons. I make $122,000/yr in a lower than average cost of living area. You know what my effective federal tax rate was? 10%! How in the hell can the federal gov't do what it needs to do when I'm paying 10% effective federal tax rate?! It's absurd. And it's not like I was hell bound to escape paying taxes. My deductions? $5000 in wife's traditional IRA contribution, state income taxes, mortgage interest, and some charitable donations. I benefited also from 401k contributions and a Flexible Spending Account program.
Unless you're willing to go on record and say GDP cannot be raised significantly from where it is today in the next 5 years, which would increase tax revenues to make up for much of the deficits we're running today, you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not in favor of cutting any gov't spending that would jeopardize significantly economic growth in the short run. Therefore, I don't think we can cut a whole lot of spending right now, and we'll unfortunately have to run very large deficits in the short run. However, once the economy grows significantly, we will need to cut spending at that point, and run substantial surpluses for awhile to get the debt more manageable again.
That is what we've done in the past, and it worked when facing very severe economic downturns. Call me crazy, but I look at history and see what worked, and follow that path.
>> ^bobknight33:
From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.
Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.
You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?
RyjkyjPost American Revolution - country in massive debt, can't even pay soldiers who fought for independence - Alexander Hamilton: "I know! Let's borrow even more." - Country grows to most prosperous nation on Earth.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.