Re: [OPE] State theory of money

Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
>
> I have argued, that the state theory of money is deficient, in the
> first instance, because as a matter of fact the circulation of
> commodities and money-tokens (exchange-processes utilising a general
> equivalent) historically "did not necessitate, presuppose, or
> require", a state power as issuer of valid money tokens.

Perhaps I should be more accurate and call it the 'Chartalist' rather
than 'state' theory of money since in Innes paper from 1913 he
explicitly wrote "Money, then, is credit and nothing but credit". In my
view he demonstrates the weakness of theories that necessarily links
money to a product with a real cost such as the metallist or commodity
theories of money. I think that line of thought exists, if not
explicitly in Marx's presentation in Vol.1, then at least in among
several Marxists, e.g. the latest work from Prabhat Patnaik.

It would be interesting to read how the specific example of kauri shells
actually operated, and how debts were settled in those societies. Do you
have some accessible reference for me to look up?

//Dave Z
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Jun 8 15:44:08 2009