From: Costas Lapavitsas (Cl5@SOAS.AC.UK)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 06:58:56 EDT
Gerry, The state is surely not exogenous to 'capitalism'. But I take it that the capitalist mode of production is a structured whole in which the sphere of the economy is analytically prior to the state and politics. It is in that sense that I prefer endogenous (to the process of exchange) explanations of money's emergence. That does not preclude the state playing an important economic role in general. Costas -----Original Message----- From: glevy@PRATT.EDU To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 20:13:06 -0400 Subject: (OPE-L) on money, capital, and the state Hi Costas: On the other hand, the approach of seeking to derive money as claim to > wealth, which you associate with Schumpeter, is problematic. The reason > is that it makes money's emergence essentially exogenous to the process > of exchange. The usual reference for this approach is Knapp and there > are many other Austrians and Germans, including Weber. They typically > rely on forces outside the market (the state, law, etc) to determine the > claim to wealth represented by money. I prefer endogenous explanations, > when available. The state is " exogeneous" to what? Surely not capitalism. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT