> The purpose of the book is to make the general-audience reader realize the problems with the conceptual-historical framework of neoliberal economics and politics
And misrepresenting mainstream economics is the way to do that?
> (I am not an expert so I wouldn't know either way). But what he successfully
This is a bizzare take. It's like claiming Graeber gets the premises wrong but somehow the conclusions he draws are correct?
> that there are many many different economic systems practiced throughout history, and many of them very highly sophisticated (and not quaint as you suggest).
But somehow these grand sophisticated economic systems did not find takers outside their niches. This is what makes rui stones and cloth bolts quaint curiosities compared to coinage and credit when discussing the 5000 years of debt.
> And once the reader realizes this, there is only a short step to the question, "is neoliberalism really the best we can do or one of the other systems better for us?"
Too bad he spins nonsensical conspiracy theories to do that.
And you agree that it's a work of political rhetoric and not dispassionate scholarship.
