Re: two currencies and Korean war

[Alan Cibils <abcibils@xxxxxxxxx>]

At  1/13/2002, William F Hummel wrote:

> In my view, chartalism refers to the essential role of taxes in a
> fiat money system, not a commodity money system.  Precious metals
> were commonly viewed as a commodity when they existed as money.

Am I missing something or is there a circular definition in this? A fiat
money system is a system in which money is validated by the state's
requirement that taxes be paid with that money. All other money is not a
fiat money system and therefore chartalism doesn't apply.

There are money systems (such as the "Credito" I mendtioned in a previous
post, or the Ithaca Hours that Alan Isaac mentioned) that are not validated
by a tax requirement. Furthermore, in the case of the  "creditos" the local
government acceptance of tax payments with that currency came long after
the currency's  existence. It seems to me that these (and other examples)
question the chartalist definition (unless, of course, one uses the
circular definition, in which case it would seem that the chartalist
approach is quite limited).

Alan


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com