Get told to read a book

Forgot to turn off sage.

Care to elaborate?

Peter Kropotkin: Mutual Aid

David Graeber: Debt, The first 5000 Years

You're wrong about Marx and Bookchin tho

Read Bortkiewcz

Nah, fam.

Just wondering why this is anchored?

sauce on image pls

With no more mission markers, it's a bit confusing what you should do in the next 13 hours, but I'll be following the steps to get the ture ending. Errr, that is, I mean the true ending, but in the Xbox 360 achievements that's how CAPCOM spelled it. Sadly, that's one of the only things fixed for the PC version, with a far more egregious bug left in that I'll talk about later. Anyway, since Jessie has some good news, we should go see her, but before we even get out of North Plaza…
Ahhhh. Remember when I said Brad seemed much too benevolent about wanting to uncovering the truth behind the outbreak instead of suppress it? This is much more like it. Something that I think is interesting here is that unlike in most fiction, this isn't getting blamed on a rogue general, or some conspiracy inside the CIA, or Red Skull, but just the actual US government themselves. I'll get back to this shortly but for now it's even more important to go over to check on Jessie. I'm guessing she's realised by now that Brad isn't coming back for her either, and she definitely doesn't look happy about being abandoned. Only 30 minutes later though, we're not able to get back before another cutscene.
Well. I guess Dr Barnaby did bite her after all.
Rest in peace, Jessie.
I can believe that she could overpower one Special Forces goon by surprise, but I'm not sure what the other guy's excuse was. I mean, he did know how to fire his rifle right?
I suppose a note is the perfect way for Otis to say goodbye, considering he can't talk, but I can't help but think it's a bit of a Deus Ex Machina for him to be a helicopter pilot too. That said, it would be a bit of a kick in the teeth if all the optional survivors you took the effort to rescue got executed by a death squad, so it's nice to know that they get away whether you do the ture ending or not.
Speaking of endings, it's time to lay Jessie to rest, but before we do, it's time to get the Snuff Shot J achievement by taking a photo.
Ero- for fuck's sake, CAPCOM, what's the matter with you? Yeah she's got boobs, but she's also dead and has some guy's larynx in her stomach. Jesus Christ Japan, you need an intervention.
Yeah. Horror. That's more like it.
Now I'm pissed, and I'm more than ready to take the fight to the cleanup crew. And on that note, it's midnight.
These guys might have similar AI to the True Eye cult members, but they're sure as hell a lot more dangerous. Crossing the mall is a lot more difficult, but it's great to get some variety now that we're drawing into the final stages of the game, and the Special Forces also drop the game's best firearm, which makes short work of the zombies, but is strangely ineffective against the exterminators themselves. The best way to take them down is charging in with a melee weapon, but beware getting stunlocked by multiple assault rifles. It's going to be a long night and our supporting cast is quickly dwindling to nothing, so we'd better fight our way back to check on Isabella.
–

Wow, Frank. All you had to say to Jessie was 'uh'? I know Brad told you not to say anything, but, ice cold. Hello again and welcome back for part four, and we only have 18 hours to go, so I'll get right into it.

Barter is an absolutely impractical system of trade, and tribal societies ran on gift economies. Claiming that money came before barter is very reasonable considering that nobody in their right mind historically used barter for all the same reasons we wouldn't now.

The bourgeois historical narrative of money arising to manage barter exchange is transparently bullshit.

elaborate pls
and dont tell me to read all of 'debt: the first 5000 years'

8ch.net/ara

Not him, but essentially Graeber spends something like two or so chapters describing why the notion that barter economies preceded money-based economies is entirely ahistorical and has only really been propagated as a founding myth of capitalism through Smith. At best, Smith based his assumptions on faulty information/accounts that were available to him at the time; at worst, he straight up made up the notion of "barter world" because it seemed intuitive.

Anthropologial evidence (through study of existing non-capitalistic (mostly tribal) communities, various historical accounts, and archaeology) suggests that most primitive/pre-modern economies (even ones that largely practiced some form of primitive communism) operated on what we would now refer to as a gift economy. Mind you it was not in the sense of "here, have whatever you want," but reciprocity: "I give X or do Y for you with the expectation that you will repay that debt in the future." The more (but still not entirely) accurate description of the development of the medium for economic exchange would be credit → money; barter didn't really play much of a role in the larger scale of things because barter is just as terrible as the likes of Smith imagined it would be and then some. Barter is inconvenient in the traditional understanding that it requires a double coincidence of wants, but also because the practical application of barter throughout history is almost always based on the understanding that one side will always leave the interaction worse off than when they started; barter almost always is a game of who can cheat the other out of the most value. This is understandably terrible in that it breeds animosity between participants, which is to be an outcome one seeks to avoid when the interaction is between two members of the same community, but works just fine if the participants are of communities that already are of poor relations. Thus barter often became more of a ritualistic practice undertaken between different communities as a means of non-violent interaction/exchange.

Money likewise emerged a bit different than a number of earlier accounts might suggest, as most common people neither carried money nor used it (at least not in its physical form). As mentioned previously, most people operated on a sort of credit system for most economic exchanges, so physical money really only came into play when a) taxes needed to be paid (assuming the state the individual lived under required that taxes or other fees be paid in a specific form of money) or b) the individual traveled frequently and needed some medium of exchange that was not credit-based (as that individual would never be able to make good on that debt). Some communities would internally use some pseudo-currency system on the side as a sort of debt record, but they were almost always of highly subjective value rather than the more objective value established by true currency. That distinction is important too: prior to the proliferation of money throughout economies, debts were far more fluid. The timeline for and extent of debt repayment could more easily fluctuate depending on what the debtor was capable of providing. That all being said, while most people would not personally carry large sums of money on them, money once introduced would most often not simply leave the economic sphere even when the physical coinage was no longer in circulation. Often money was more of an abstract idea rather than a physical object: it was a tool for assessing the value of commodities. An example given by Graeber is that the currency of the Frankish Empire (pence, shillings, pounds; translation may vary) continued to be used as the basis of many French community's assessment of values even centuries after the actual coins ceased to be circulated. These values still had some level of subjectivity to them though, and that subjectivity was vital in that it helped maintain social interactions between people over long periods of time. No debt could ever be said to be certainly repaid, thus both sides become economically (and by extension, socially) intertwined in the pervading debt owed between them, or the parties abandon the debts and end all association. This could be argued plays into the modern alienating effects of money in our existing economy: we assume all values expressed through pricing and money to be absolute, thus any exchange taken through such channels fails to form any sort of social or economic relationship

Probably because you haven't actually brought up any actual critiques or content. You've just come in and said "these people are dumb," made some vague allusion to "read more scientific papers/studies," suggested the Prince (a book most people have read and been familiar with since middle school) and Bortkiewcz without elaboration, and finally bashed Graeber on a assumptions that are actually false based on the content of his own work.

Calm down, buddy.

Empirical marxism, neo-marxian economics
You still need to understand Marx to read them

The Dunning–Kruger effect is strong with this one.

what's the matter, it has a point