see also> gg theories of theories
jstage.jst.go.jp 2020 Nominality of Money: Theory of Credit Money and Chartalism – by Atsushi Naito
Abstract – This paper focuses on the unit of account function of money that is emphasized by Keynes in his book A Treatise on Money (1930) and recently in post-Keynesian endogenous money theory and modern Chartalism, or in other words Modern Monetary Theory. These theories consider the nominality of money as an important characteristic because the unit of account and the corresponding money as a substance could be anything, and this aspect highlights the nominal nature of money; however, although these theories are closely associated, they are different. The three objectives of this paper are to investigate the nominality of money common to both the theories, examine the relationship and differences between the two theories with a focus on Chartalism, and elucidate the significance and policy implications of Chartalism.
Introduction – Recent years have seen the development of Modern Monetary Theory or Chartalism and it now holds a certain prestige in the field. This theory primarily deals with state money or fiat money; however, in Post Keynesian economics, the endogenous money theory and theory of monetary circuit place the stress on bank money or credit money. Although Chartalism and the theory of credit money are clearly opposed to each other, there exists another axis of conflict in the field of monetary theory. According to the textbooks, this axis concerns the functions of money, such as means of exchange, means of account, and store of value. Whereas the function of money as the means of exchange is stressed in Classical, Neoclassical, and Austrian economics, both Chartalism and credit money theory emphasize its function as the means of account. In particular, Neoclassical economics accentuates the real aspect of money and usually adopts the quantity theory of money and the commodity theory of money. However, the strand that stresses the means of account function focuses on the nominal aspect of money and is called nominalism－reflecting the view that the substance of money does not matter. This paper examines the conflict between nominalism, on the one hand, and the commodity theory of money or Metallism, on the other…
> Chartalism; Credit Money; Nominality of Money; Keynes
degruyter.com 2021 Reflections on the Ontology of Money – by Uskali Mäki
Abstract – The suggestions outlined here include the following. Money is a bundle of institutionally sustained causal powers. Money is an institutional universal instantiated in generic currencies and particular money tokens. John Searle’s account of institutional facts is not helpful for understanding the nature of money as an institution (while it may help to illuminate aspects of the nature of currencies and money particulars). The money universal is not a social convention in David Lewis’s sense (while currencies and money particulars are characterized by high degrees of conventionality). The existence of the money universal is dependent on a larger institutional structure and cannot be understood in terms of collective belief or acceptance or agreement separately focusing on money. These claims have important implications for realism about money.
> money; currency; causal powers; institution; institutional fact; convention; realism; existence; social ontology; Searle
college-de-france.fr 2023 The Pure Commodity Theory of Money – by Olivier Massin
Résumé – “The paper defends the view that money is any continuant used as a medium of exchange, a view dubbed the pure commodity theory of money. By contrast to the standard commodity theory, which equates money with a material commodity which spontaneously ends up being used as a means of exchange, the pure commodity theory does not place any requirement on the origin or materiality of money. I then compare the pure commodity theory with four main rivals. On the credit theory, money is a kind of debt or claim; on the abstract theory, money is a position on a ratio scale. On the property theory, money is some property of an agent, namely the agent’s purchasing power. On the institutional theory, money is a system of rules.
I argue that the credit theory and the abstract theory are in fact versions of the pure commodity theory, for claims and positions on ratio scale, properly understood, are continuants used as media of exchange. I argue that the property and the institutional theories are better construed not as theories about money, but as a theory about closely connected phenomena. The property theory is a theory about the purchasing power conferred by money. The institutional theory is a theory about what explains the existence and maintenance of money. One central strand is that there exists animportant category of exchangeable goods, intangible goods, the neglect of which leads to dismiss the commodity theory on poor grounds.”
asyapassinsky.com – gg/pdf 2023 Cryptocurrency: Commodity or Credit? Asya Passinsky
10.unine.pdf money money money seminar
degruyter.com 2021 Property Rights with Respect to Modern Money: A Libertarian Justification – by Lennart B. Ackermans
Abstract – The traditional Lockean justification of property rights has been argued to be no longer valid in a world in which much wealth does not derive from acquisitions of natural resources, and in which much property, such as money, is intangible. This means that libertarians need to reconsider whether and why property rights are justified for objects that fall outside of the scope of the Lockean justification. This paper gives a justification of property rights in relation to modern money, which uses the self-ownership principle as its central premise. Since modern money is a form of credit, I start with a justification of credit property rights. I then consider both money under gold convertibility and present-day fiat systems, showing that the justification of credit property rights remains valid under these conditions.
>. property rights; libertarianism; money; Post-Keynesian economics; credit theory of money