> 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 claiming Graeber gets the premises wrong but somehow the conclusions he draws are correct?

> 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.