> You do realize that it's a history book and is not actually about economics at all?
The book about money and debt guess what discipline has studied this for 500 years. But of course, when he writes a book about money and debt its not economics. Of course it has other components as well but its still a large part of the substantial argument of the book, even if it doesn't cover as many pages as all his case studies.
It is also very specifically target at economist and telling everybody how stupid they are, there are ton's of references to the failures of economics and historical economists. He almost delights in it.
> The closest he gets is debunking the story about money arising because of a coincidence of wants.
Yes and is it not funny that he has never actually read the book by the economist who most popularized this. He literally doesn't know about it and has not read or studied any of the literature.
So he is 'debunking' something that he has not actually informed himself about. He literally didn't read the book by Carl Menger that made this argument. How can you take somebody like that seriously?
> A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose.
There are tons of left wing and even communist economist and thinkers that I respect. However he is basically a charlatan who does not even have the decency to inform himself about what he is criticizing and yet writes with such a superior tone because he already knows that he is correct.
The book about money and debt guess what discipline has studied this for 500 years. But of course, when he writes a book about money and debt its not economics. Of course it has other components as well but its still a large part of the substantial argument of the book, even if it doesn't cover as many pages as all his case studies.
It is also very specifically target at economist and telling everybody how stupid they are, there are ton's of references to the failures of economics and historical economists. He almost delights in it.
> The closest he gets is debunking the story about money arising because of a coincidence of wants.
Yes and is it not funny that he has never actually read the book by the economist who most popularized this. He literally doesn't know about it and has not read or studied any of the literature.
So he is 'debunking' something that he has not actually informed himself about. He literally didn't read the book by Carl Menger that made this argument. How can you take somebody like that seriously?
> A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose.
There are tons of left wing and even communist economist and thinkers that I respect. However he is basically a charlatan who does not even have the decency to inform himself about what he is criticizing and yet writes with such a superior tone because he already knows that he is correct.