I really wish anarchists (even the of the late Graeber's estimable intellect) would differentiate between 'economics' and macroeconomics.

Macro is deficient in many ways. The problem is that microeconomics is a much simpler, reproducible, and widely useful set of tools, but many activist-minded people dismiss it out of hand because they associate the whole discipline of economics with ideology. Pointing out that microeconomics can be useful without involving money at all often provokes glazed looks of incomprehension.

My basic problem with anarchism at this point (perhaps I am just woefully misinformed, having but a coffee-table knowledge) is that I am old enough to have been knocked around a bit, and have experienced that courts are a wonderful institution to have recourse to when in conflict with someone whose power is equivalent or greater but who is logically in the wrong. And an anarchist court system sounds oxymoronic.

that's more a liberal mythology that courts and the associated policing and caging systems balance injustices including from the ruling class. so you've started with the mythology, maybe next you can learn about its reality

one simple recent example is that courts functioned during slavery in america and upheld it as an institution of oppression in favor of capital

So, this didn’t age well:

> We now live in a different economic universe than we did before the crash. Falling unemployment no longer drives up wages. Printing money does not cause inflation. Yet the language of public debate, and the wisdom conveyed in economic textbooks, remain almost entirely unchanged

This isn’t a stupid article, and parts of it are even true (though the true parts are mostly that same much-despised orthodox economics.) But it is an arrogant piece, and if you act like everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or else corrupt, reality will sometimes smack you in the face.