From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Mon May 31 2004 - 05:17:06 EDT
At 20:13 -0400 29-05-2004, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: >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. (to Costas) No: you need to distinguish two exchanges: on the labour market, on the commodity market; money's emergence is not exogenous to the first, quite the opposite (whereas in the Menger tradition the first exchange is cancelled, as is in Marxians who foirget that general exchange is of commodities which need to be produced). >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. (to Costas) Not Schumpeter: you may check in HEA, etc. He was never a supporter of Knapp. > >The state is " exogeneous" to what? Surely not capitalism. I agree: but I think that capitalism must be first analyzed looking at a system made only by workers and capitalist firms. riccardo -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Hyman P. Minsky" Università di Bergamo Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it direct +39-035-2052545 secretary +39-035 2052501 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/dse/homepage/bellofiore.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT