IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
I generally support Claus Germer in this debate: here are some additional arguments. It is clear that at a time of hyper-inflation (a permanent possibility with inconvertible paper - and NB only for paper) non-commodity money fails in one of its most essential functions, namely to serve as means of payment. Vendors refuse barrows of notes and demand a proto-money such as packs of cigarettes. The reason for failure as means of payment is that such paper fails as store; it cannot conserve value between sale and purchase of commodities. Even today in some countries it is advisable to change money into goods as soon as you get it or place it in high interest accounts. This proof that paper is not money is so clear and convincing it is really surprising non-commodity money theories are still advocated. This can only be explained by an empiricist prejudice: that hyper-inflation is rare and can be neglected. But where conceptual issues are concerned, as here, refutations cannot be dismissed on this ground. Planes rarely fall from the sky but this does not mean the law of gravity is false. It just means contervailing forces to gravity exist. Remove these and the plane falls like a stone. Paper 'flies' only because it is supported by a social vote of confidence. Remove that and its value goes into free fall. Assume for the sake of argument gold plays no role today, the dollar serving as 'world money' (i.e. pseudo-money). The conclusion to be drawn is that we live in a moneyless economy. It is an interesting confidence trick since everyone has an interest in assuring everyone else that this is OK. Since this is the economy we live in it obviously requires study to see how it works. The main conceptual issue to be solved is how pseudo-money can substitute for real money for long periods. Value form theory can make a contribution here I'm sure, but it should always retain a theoretical leg in a real money base i.e. commodity money. greetings Chris A PS On measure - I suggest here are three ways of doing it a) imediate as when weights balance on a pair of scales b) through a higher mediation; since weight is a force and the tension in a spring is a force these can be balanced, conversely the pair of scales measures mass because we can strip out gravity c) indirectly through a well established theory of physical effects as in the way atmospheric pressure or heat can be correlated with strips of mercury. But I do not see how inconvertible paper can measure value since there is a hiatus between them. Such paper is 'weightless'. P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address, <cjarthur@xxxxxxxxxxxx> but the old one will also run until next summer. (To be doubly sure load both!)
- [OPE-L:2307] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Markets and Information, (continued)
- [OPE-L:2307] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Markets and Information, Duncan K. Foley Mon 31 Jan 2000, 04:31 GMT
- [OPE-L:2087] Re: Re: *What will happen in the 21st Century?*, Jurriaan Bendien Tue 11 Jan 2000, 17:24 GMT
- [OPE-L:2100] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *What will happen in the 21st Century?*, Duncan K. Foley Wed 12 Jan 2000, 02:26 GMT
- [OPE-L:2077] Re: The Money Supply, Claus Germer Mon 10 Jan 2000, 11:43 GMT
- [OPE-L:2093] re: The Money Supply, C. J. Arthur Tue 11 Jan 2000, 21:31 GMT
- [OPE-L:2095] Re: re: The Money Supply, Allin Cottrell Tue 11 Jan 2000, 22:09 GMT
- [OPE-L:2096] Re: The Money Supply, Gerald Levy Tue 11 Jan 2000, 23:08 GMT
- [OPE-L:2115] Re: Re: The Money Supply, Michael J Williams Wed 12 Jan 2000, 18:49 GMT
- [OPE-L:2116] Re: re: The Money Supply, Michael J Williams Wed 12 Jan 2000, 18:49 GMT