Man Charlie Rose became obnoxious at the end, just forcing words in and out of people's mouths constantly. Not that he didn't do that in the beginning, but in this case it's SO pronounced.
I actually think Graeber is slightly wrong, maybe: INTERNATIONAL debts are different, because the international society of countries is anarchic, with the US basically being a thug that decides what the "rules-based order" is, using debt as one mechanism. PERSONAL, informal debts are also different, for the same reason (one of my favorite insights of Graeber's is that personal informal life is anarcho-communist) BUT, in my (limited) experience, professional people, investors, lawyers, etc. don't look at debt as morality. Sure, they're happy to use morality as a rhetorical weapon against debtors, but when you buy or sign a debt contract, like all contracts, IT MUST SPECIFY what happens if the debtor doesn't pay. Also, the debtor IS ALREADY PAYING EXTRA for his likelihood of defaulting. So this possibility of not getting paid is reflected both in the price AND the contract itself. So it's dishonest to say "well, but surely one must pay one's debts", because the debtor can default and still be behaving lawfully, which is usually what happens. (Not to mention it is often an artificial entity, not a person, that fails to pay). Successful businessmen have bragged about how many times they (or their companies) went bankrupt before one made him rich.
Charlie Rose demonstrating that deliberative democracy doesn't work because there is always someone who doesn't stfu and let the other person answer a question
I like graeber and hmos are violent but at 26:44 same comment in his book debt about the violence of ejecting someone from a library… has he ever encountered the often violent loons who demand entrance to libraries without ids? Also many university libraries are open to the public
The fix is in, as rigged and upheld by the hierarchy, who maintain all control in order for this status quo feeding frenzy to exist.A human-invented-monster morph- chameleonizing the politician-lobbyist, which through this corporatacracy, self replicates. Piece by piece dismantling can be done through egalitarian reconstruction. Praises to Graeber and Wengrow for their Dawn of Everything. OCCUPY has FUTURE with ADVENTUROUS PROGNOSTICATORS ! Power to the People, by the People, for the People !
Charlie Rose is insufferable with his constant interruptions and immediately trying to knock down Dave's researched argument that the US is a kleptocracy. Rose is such a corporate tool. This is unwatchable.
it's crazy that charlie rose is such a well-regarded interviewer. he looks like he's barely listening here. same in the other graeber interview from 2006
He was a smart man but he is completely wrong about where loan money comes from. When you get approved for a loan from a bank, the bank contacts the Federal Reserve and simply gets permission to withdraw the money from your secret bank account at the Federal Reserve. It is called a c'est que vie trust. Do the research. If you have a birth certificate, you have one. All the bank does is give you your own money from your own bank account! Banks don't have any money. As soon as you deposit money in a bank, they immediately spend it. But since you don't know that, they convince you to pay the money back over time with interest. Once Americans find out this truth, there should be a revolution.
The- White - Owl. You are more a chicken with it's head cut off or goose than an Owl. You are wrong. The private banks create the money themselves and don't get it from some account at the reserve bank. Your idea is based on some concocted belief that does not even mathematicall add up. The private banks create 90% or more of the money in the economy. In most countries their reserve requirement is only a small percentage of what they create and lend. For the Last few years the U.S. reserve requirement has been either ZERO or a a few percent. Some countries including Canada and Australia don't even have reserve system yet they both have private bank lending.
This how confused thinking David Graeber's argument about the debt created by government's deficit spending was :- He says "It's not like the King ever paid back his debt from whatever war in France he was fighting in 1692- ." No David the King never paid back his debts because he was the equivalent of the ruling government of today but the People who are the equivalent of today's public had to pay it back as they do today. He has shot his own argument about government debt not being paid back in the foot by giving an example from the past about why Government debt always fell on the public and does now because the government of today never pays back it's debt. the public does.
Mr Graeber's ideas are dopey . Firstly.- If someone gets a loan from a bank and the money is lost on horse or other loss then they are responsible for paying it back or their property gets confiscates and the lender gets the benefit of it making it their asset. The money is effectively destroyed. The money is also destroyed if they do pay off the loan because they would have had to get that money from the existing money in the economy. Secondly. if all the money in the economy was paid back to the queen or government the whole system would NOT collapse as you said that is because we live in a fiat money system where money is not limited by one sector. The private banks create most money (90%) in the economy when the lend to their customers and Graeber ignores this fact. Additionally the idea that the only way the government can balance the budget is that if you being the public can't is infinitely dumb. It is based on ignorance of an understanding and some idea that government debt and private surpluses compete against each other which is not supported with evidence. There can be no evidence because the government is not creator of money. The Central bank (Federal reserve) is the creator and so are private banks. Government is a user of money (the biggest single user) and gets its money from the private sector through taxes OR from the Federal reserve bank through borrowing..
@@Will140f You understand what about how money is created and how did you get that knowledge ? By swallowing MMT garbage or how? Did you work it out yourself ? I doubt it but enlighten us with your knowledge and reasoning.
The biggest difference between a Noam Chomsky lecture with a David Graeber lecture is that when Noam gives a very long formal lecture, he doesn't read it. He knows it really really well.
The biggest difference between a Noam Chomsky lecture and a David Graeber lecture is that they are/were completely different people with different interests. Just kidding. Noam is a committed universalist who mostly lectured for public dissemination. Many of Graeber's lectures were similarly tailored for a layperson, but this is an anthropologically focused talk directed towards LSE students and faculty. If you don't understand his thesis, just say so. There are multiple lectures by Noam on youtube where he reads from prepared notes, anyway, so I don't really know what the point of your comment is?
* after being asked loaded questions about "democracy" and "anarchism" * "Charlie... can I call you 'Charlie'? You don't seem to know what any of these terms mean. Have you considered that maybe capitalists like that you're so ignorant?"
Graeber is basically lying here. He knows why debt has the moral force it does. Not paying a debt means living off the labor others without their consent.
That’s not true. Medical debt is incurred not because of the price of medical care is tied to a market force but instead because some account can just charge an arbitrary price.
If you listen to his talk at Google, it is clear he both understands and agrees with your point. However, Graeber suggests that debt isn't quite so simple and straightforward in all cases. That it is has never been that simple. Indeed he speaks approvingly of punishment of the person who is essentially living off another's labor by shirking his debts. Obviously if a person fails to repay then that person doesn't get more loans... if the rule was it is totally OK to never repay then it follows no one lends $$...
That's a made up narrativ to get people in believing in the concept of debt. To be a quiet servant of your master, not think about a different way of how to organize society.
"Graeber is lying" really marks this comment out as from a thoughtful, balanced and judicious interlocutor with deep respect for his counterpart. I might contract a debt that I agree to pay back by marrying the lender's daughter. If the contract clause says, "agrees to marry the bearer's daughter", then if that lender sells the debt, as he is entitled to do, I find myself bound to marry someone I know nothing of. The resulting morality of demand to pay by the debt-purchaser bears no resemblance to the morality of the original debt I incurred. The premise under capitalism of a transferrable promise is that the ethical dimension, such as in the IMF example of debt forgiveness, is legalistically isolated from the general morality of human existence. If you prioritize that kind of brutality, then you not only lose your humanity, but deny others theirs. A debt for the lender is a risk calculation: it should be expected to be sometimes go sour, particularly under the influence of time. Capitalism is, by definition, living off the labour of others without their giving meaningful consent. Bad debts are something different altogether: they are costed into the background profits of exploitation. The morality of repayment, which is generally controlled by the indebted, who can demand repayment and bring legal suit (where the debtor cannot) is not constant, but contingent.
Democratic decisions are made in individual consensus, ("it'll never work""), unless and until individuals are willing to learn, (built in), and willing to teach, with mutual respect, as often happens. More, and continuous, research is required, that is how the sausages are made.
@@briananderson8428 It's shocking that Charlie often had such excellent guests for the very reason you just mentioned. He's always struggling to hold on in the deeper interviews.
Apologies, I pulled this off of another site, so I'm not too sure. I mention in another comment this interview likely happened around late 2011 or early 2012.
