coslap@aueb.gr
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:54:33 +0000
Dear Akira,
Thanks for the comments. I have interspersed some remarks as prominently as
i could.
Cheers
Costas
At 10:26 AM 12/14/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear Member
>
>I intend to try to put this money-supply-debates in order after a while.
>
>Now I show my opinion about Dr. COSTAS's following coments.
>
>> SURELY THE TAX LIABILITY IS AN OBLIGATION OF GIVEN NOMINAL VALUE THAT
>> CANNOT CHANGE AS A RESULT OF ALTERATIONS IN THE QUANTITY OF MONEY. IN
>> SETTLING IT, MONEY IS MEANS OF PAYMENT AND NOT MEANS OF CIRCULATION. HOW
>> WOULD YOU INCORPORATE THAT IN THE QUANTITY THEORY OF MONEY?
>>
>> COSTAS
>
>I think the intrinsic nature of the contemporary currency is the credit
>money, that is means of payment.
>Therefore it's circulation is based on the offset principle. That, " To the
>extent that they ultimately cancel each other out , by the balancing of
>debts and claims, they function absolutely as money, even though there is no
>final transformation into money proper".
>
>
> As far as the offset principle is be at work, the contemporary credit money
>can circulate in place of the money and also function as means of
>circulation.
>
>
>Basically we can expalin the contemporary money as I mentioned. But we need
>more expalnation about the state-cfredit and the transformation to the paper
>money.
>
My point was quite different. I agree that modern money is credit money and
that tends it to be means of payment (and hoarding). But the Quantity
Theory has difficulty incorporating this function of money. If obligations
are given, how can a quantity theorist ascribe variation of nominal
magnitudes to variation of the quantity of the circulating medium? By this
token, it is hard to see how the exchange value of money can be generally
determined by tax liabilities on lines similar to those of the Quantity
Theory of Money.
Costas
>By the way, there are the following comments in the past.
>
>> > > On the other hand, have there been any empirical investigations using
>> > > value categories which have assumed that gold *is* the money
>> > > commodity?
>> > Not that I know. If somebody has information about it, I would very much
>> > like to know.
>>
>> Does it bother you that there, apparently, have been no such studies?
>>
>> Even if there have not been such studies to date, do you think that such
>> studies are *possible*? If so, how?
>
>I can not get what
>>>>empirical investigations using value categories which have assumed that
gold
>>>>*is* the money
>>>> commodity
>means perfectly.
>
>But if I consider it as the investigation on the assumption that gold is
>money, I know several papers in Japanese.
>For example, the study of estimating the de facto standard of price from the
>product cost of gold and the International conparative cost ( the exchange
>rate of labour among the international trade) and so on.
>
>I think that broadly meaning, my former paper could be also a kind of
>empirical study about the foregin exchange rate on that assumption.
>
>
>
>#############################################
>MATSUMOTO, Akira
>
>Visiting Scholar
>Department of Economics,
>University of California, Riverside
>1150 University Avenue
>Riverside, CA 92521-0427 USA
>Phone 909-787-5037x1575 or X1570
>Fax 909-787-5685
>Email: akiram@mail.ucr.edu
>________________________
>
>Associate Professor on Money and Banking
>Department of Comprehensive Policy Making
>school of Law & Letters
>EHIME University
>Matsuyama, Ehime
>790-8577, Japan
>Tel:+81-89-927-9237(office)
>FaX: +81-89-927-8916
>E-mail: amatsu@ll.ehime-u.ac.jp
>##############################################
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 19 1999 - 11:17:57 EST