David Graeber was of the people and for the people. There are precious few who are the likes of David Graeber. Each of us has the responsibility to carry his torch.
He was of the people and for the people. There are precious few who are the likes of David Graeber. Each of us has the responsibility to carry his torch.
The difference between a for profit politician and an academic!!! Academic individuals still have to care about accuracy and reputation, profit is less important.
My professor let my class know about this man earlier this week. Im kind of sad that I am barely finding out about him now. He has lots of interesting ideas that I want to explore more.
That last comment on the relationship between higher corporate tax rates and resulting investments in R6D and worker compensation was really illuminating. I'm surprised I haven't come across it before, but it does make perfect sense.
I understood that Trump vs Clinto meant a clash of two different Capitalist projects, one national-imperialist and the other imperial-globalist but I could never figure out that construction vs banks conflict. It makes a lot of sense however.
The Republicans are the lower levels of capital - the people who are still trying to accumulate vast fortunes. The Democrats are the upper levels of capital - the monopolists, the Robber Baron families of the 19th Century, the people who already have vast fortunes. That's the division in America's Ruling Class.
@@itzenormous - There may be differences between Democrat and Republican capitalists but they seem to be in the line of people with interests abroad ("globalists") and people with interests at home, like construction and real state investors ("nationalists"). Historically the tendency is that the latter are more successful because they can rally the nation (the proletariat masses) behind more easily and because there is an objective tendency of great ("monopolistic") capitalists to organize themselves within nations (polities) and blocs of nations, because those polities are the ones that actually have some power to enforce demands, often via war.
@@itzenormous - Or in other words: Trump is classical imperialist, Lenin style, while the corp-dems are rather "interimperialist", Kautsky style. This refers to the polemic that Lenin and Kautsky had on imperialism in the 1910s. Overall I think Lenin was more correct but Keynesianism, US opportunism against European colonialism and ideological conflict with the USSR may have favored a Kautsky-like "interimperialist" tendency to become more dominant. But in depth it's clear that, if we consider the USSR as just another capitalist superpower (a very peculiar one indeed), the Lenin model is the one that stands: monopolist capitalists organize in nations and blocs of nations in order to fight for global hegemony like mafias. This to me implies that, regardless of politics, there's no real alternative to Trumpism. Even if the Dems win, which I believe unlikely, China is set to be the main rival because it is, objectively so. The Dems may be less disruptive re. Europe, more accomodating to Mexico, less racist against Hispanics, and they are obsessed with confronting Russia instead, but otherwise it's pretty much the same.
David Graeber accurately described the effect of Trump tax cuts in last few mins of this interview. Stock Buy Backs and no real investment in the economy, this too in early 2017 before the tax bill was approved. RIP.
This chap is really interesting. Didn't think that lowering corporate taxation will lead to more toxic Caymen Islands' casino capitalism instead of capped taxing that causes them to pay for research for tax relief! Clever! ; ) K
khar: Yep. And that is why the "trickle-down" theory was always a lie. And one that has been destroying the structure of the USA more and more since 1981.
Grubby is intellectually dishonest, and like Chomsky and his ilk, *bank* on his mid wit listeners not to do any fact checking. Look up effective tax rates by year. Taxes were never 60-90% as Grubby deliberately misled you to believe. Now look up SEC 10Ks for any corporate filer over the same period, IBM for example. R&D expenses have increased. Again, another lie from Grubby. This guy and his tribe sure make lots of profit selling the same old anti-capitalist schtick to midwits though.
@@JB-du3qv 11:28 "they had like a 90 percent tax rate on the highest brackets of income" He is clearly referring to the _top marginal tax rate_ , which as a bracketed progressive tax scheme is a different figure to and consistently higher than the actual tax percentage that is paid as a whole (the _effective tax rate_ ). The marginal tax rate on the _top income bracket_ in the US _did_ reach 94% during WWII on income _after_ the first $200,000 (over $3,000,000 in today's money), and remained at 90% until the 60's. Even then the top marginal tax rate never dropped below 70% until the neoliberal reforms under Reagan's presidency in the 80's.
Spot on: "Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987 and since that time has changed his party affiliation five times. In 1999, Trump changed his party affiliation to the Independence Party of New York. In August 2001, Trump changed his party affiliation to Democratic. In September 2009, Trump changed his party affiliation back to the Republican Party. In December 2011, Trump changed to "no party affiliation" (independent). In April 2012, Trump again returned to the Republican Party.[4] In a 2004 interview, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans"
The Rona was cover for the largest transfer of wealth world has seen as 50 people now have the combined wealth of the poorest 165 million. Absurd and unsustainable.
I'm assuming when people say "starter" they mean something not to hefty or dense that serves as general introduction and can be used as a general overview about the broad intellectual scope and concerns of a particular author. Neither a 800 pages book comprising centuries of history on the anthropological relations between debt, money and morality nor a theory about the job structure late capitalism has created as a measure of social control more than economic development I think qualify as such. You can start with "Fragments of an Anarquist Anthropology”, a 55 pages pamphlet started with these words: "What follows are a series of thoughts, sketches of potential theories, and tiny manifestos-all meant to offer a glimpse at the outline of a body of radical theory that does not actually exist, though it might possibly exist at some point in the future."
@@HiddenPalm I think "Debt" tells a great story that's well laid out. It covers a lot of ground, but it' ties together a lot of his thinkng. I don't get as much a feel about home from Bullshit Jobs, and it feels a little less well constructed. Maybe that's me.
@@paspartu2453 "Fragments" is interesting, especially if one enjoys discussing fine shades of political thought. But "Debt" tells a better story, and is way more applicable to today's conditions. If more people understood Debt (as well as some of the better MMT literature) we'd be in a better position to implement societal change.
Shouldn't we automatically reduce "American/global finance is the tribute-taking agency for the American empire" to 'finance is the account of the empire?'
I found this man a few months ago and found out he died recently. That’s awful. Does anyone know of people that are “carrying his torch” and writing/speaking with similar views?
why the volume-sound is so low..... i mean they are discusing but seems like they are whispering..... anarchy theory asmr like:P but really the sound is too low!
ItssssJack for instance the section that starts at 8:30: about the lies of Trump and the taboos (the US can’t default on its debt) he brings up. One such taboo is that the US cannot default on its debt because the federal reserve simply prints some more money. Really? More money in circulation means higher inflation, one might counter, yet David does not mention this downside.
@@MrBenzcdi One of his premises is that greater instability in the world's economy actually bolsters the dollar, so the instability caused by just printing more money (inflation) would be offset by the fact that it would also cause more countries to invest in the dollar in response to economic instability. Are you saying that this premise is incorrect? My general impression from things that I've read is that, yes it would be very difficult for the US to actually default because its currency is so embedded into the world's economy and most of its debt is actually in its own currency (hence we can literally just print it).
ItssssJack my understanding is the same; 70% of the worlds currency is USD. Whenever there is turmoil, the dollar seems to be a go to place. David hypothesises in this clip but doesn’t underpin his hypothesis with calculation model. That’s all...
@@paspartu2453 Just about every country in the world wants to do that. China has been in the lead for over 30 years. Everytime you buy something at Walmart you are supporting the Communist Party. That's why the Chinese will stay in the lead.
@@HansLennros-ry5iz What you don't understand is this: the US prints dollars, sends them overseas, and receives actual goods back in return. We literally create dollars out of thin air and the rest of the world sends us their manufactured stuff. How does China "win" in that scenario
@@paspartu2453 Financialization? That's when the big financial players gain influence over economic policy and economic outcomes whereas industrialization is the development of industries in a country or region on a wide scale. Usually that is the process by which an economy is transformed from primarily agricultural to one based on the manufacturing of goods. Individual manual labor is often replaced by mechanized mass production, and craftsmen are replaced by assembly lines. I think that if you want to say something smart, or at least relevant, you will need some more knowledge of the basics.
Trump plays the game --- Graeber gives him why too much credit. Trump just plays the cards in front of him -- and I don't thing he thinks much deeper than that --- HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN.
I wanted so much to believe in Trump....but when he removed the controls from Payday and Title loan sharks (put in place by Obama) I gave up hoping. I don't hate him and may even vote for him, but only with a Gallic shrug of skepticism.
@@knowledgeisslavery4139 "Conserving your bloodline?" You are defining your issue literally in terms of race. "Bloodline" refers directly to race? Why do you lie to yourself that way?
10:53. This is my first exposure to this guy and he is soooo stunningly wrong to say that lowering corporate taxes discourages investment. Whoa! And then he goes on to repeat the myth that investment in corporations was high in the 50’s because taxes were so high. First of all, post WW2 the US basically had a monopoly on manufacturing because manufacturing plants in Europe had been destroyed in the war. Second, tax rates were extraordinarily high then but no one paid that because a business could deduct almost everything. So far, I’m seeing that this guy is a fraud.
Both were high in the 50's. Your explanation is very weak. Here is a better explanation: because of the high taxes, they hadn't the money to speculate in finance, real estate, pumping up their own stock prices, etc. The lack of opportunity for financial gimmicks was absent (also in part due to a certain regulatory structure) - so the people running the companies were manufacturing people. As taxes went down, & certain new laws were introduced giving more opportunities for speculative behavlor, , financial people started to take over the big corporations: GM, Dupont, etc. who had no interest in manufacturing processes or research.
@@thomashahn631 What do you mean by "both were high in the 50's"? Again, no business paid the high taxes because they could deduct pretty much everything at full rate then. (I'm pretty sure it was the Reagan admin that shut that down.) And even if we pretend for a minute that businesses paid the 90% tax rate, they wouldn't have simply because there would no incentive to even start a business. Seriously, who the fuck wants to go through the monumental task of starting and working 18 hour days to build a business knowing you had to fork over the majority of your profits to the black hole of the state? No sane person would do such a thing with such high tax rates and implementing them quickly would have caused a depression that would have made FDR's depression look like kindergarten in comparison.
Mate. That's exactly his point: taxes were very high, and you could avoid paying them by investing and deducting the amount you invested. As opposed to buying a third yacht or doing whatever you want with money nobody else has a claim to, because taxes are extremely low in hope you'll invest by your own good will.
He literally wrote a whole book on Debt (Debt The first 5000 years) disproving one of the biggest myths in economics. Graeber is a legend, it’s a shame he’s not more widely recognized.
He didn't come from an academically-oriented family so he doesn't tend to sound like an academic. And he's speaking to the public, not other academics.
@@joeblow1942 Graeber claims that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. This is the opposite of the narrative given in standard economics texts dating back to Adam Smith. To support this, he cites numerous historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies. He also claims that the standard economics texts cite no evidence for suggesting that barter came before money, credit and debt, and he has seen no credible reports suggesting such.
