Re: two currencies and Korean war

[David Gleicher <104201.2301@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps someone taking the 'chartalist' viewpoint can answer  a few basic
questions I have regarding this protracted and very interesting discussion.
 Forgive me if these have already been answered, I haven't been able to
follow the entire thread.

First, if contemporary money is credit granted by a particular State (for
example, Federal Reserve notes), no more or less, then isn't it reasonable
to suppose that a State (at least one that is not thoroughly corrupt) would
require payment of taxes in the form of its own money?

If the answer is yes, then, second, why should one then privilege the
payment of taxes, as opposed to any other expenditure of income, as in some
sense primary to the legitimacy of the credit money of a particular State?


If the State were to finance all its expenditures by borrowing from the
public and not collect taxes at all, would there be no money?

If no private entity  were willing to accept the notes issued by a State in
exchange for goods and servies, but the State required tax payments in its
own notes, would the State survive?

Thanks.  I really hope that someone can answer these.

DG