Michael
Nov 14th 2008, 12:31 PM
A cultural history of debt
Payback
Oct 16th 2008
From The Economist print edition
WITHOUT debt there would be no capitalism; mankind would be living in caves and eating whatever it killed. But Margaret Atwood’s elegant and erudite canter round the literary, cultural and historical aspects of borrowing, lending, owing and repaying has less to do with economics than with human nature. Her new book is a collection of radio talks, conceived and delivered long before the current crisis, but its publication is remarkably timely.
Source (http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12414948&fsrc=rss)
I wasn't sure where to post this - Culture, Literature or Economics! :ummm:
I decided to put it here because of Atwood's name and fame as a literary figure.
Personally, I'm looking forward to reading this book. I like the idea of a non-economist looking at the history and culture of debts as social phenomena rather than just economic actors. In my long study of the history of money and capitalism, I've often found that the best texts for learning something new were the ones not written by economists but historians.
Although the Economist gives short shrift to Atwood's efforts, I suspect they were looking only for affirmations of neoclassical economic theory rather than a cultural understanding of the phenomena.
Payback
Oct 16th 2008
From The Economist print edition
WITHOUT debt there would be no capitalism; mankind would be living in caves and eating whatever it killed. But Margaret Atwood’s elegant and erudite canter round the literary, cultural and historical aspects of borrowing, lending, owing and repaying has less to do with economics than with human nature. Her new book is a collection of radio talks, conceived and delivered long before the current crisis, but its publication is remarkably timely.
Source (http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12414948&fsrc=rss)
I wasn't sure where to post this - Culture, Literature or Economics! :ummm:
I decided to put it here because of Atwood's name and fame as a literary figure.
Personally, I'm looking forward to reading this book. I like the idea of a non-economist looking at the history and culture of debts as social phenomena rather than just economic actors. In my long study of the history of money and capitalism, I've often found that the best texts for learning something new were the ones not written by economists but historians.
Although the Economist gives short shrift to Atwood's efforts, I suspect they were looking only for affirmations of neoclassical economic theory rather than a cultural understanding of the phenomena.