Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

[rosserjb@xxxxxxx]

     I know I shouldn't get into
this, as this is an old and much
beaten up chestnut on this list,
with many holding views very strongly,
but, can somebody please remind me
why the objects whose use as general
media of exchange in "primitive" economies
with no state collecting taxes are not
"money" as is thought by most economists?
Is this simply a matter of definition,
or is there something else involved here?
     Presumably no one is going to pretend
that no such spontaneously evolved objects
have existed in world history, even if they
are now no longer in use much of anywhere.
I have no problem with someone arguing that
in our current world economy with well
developed and domineering states, it is
irrelevant to speak of anything being
money that is not used for paying taxes.
But to argue that it is being able to pay
taxes with something that makes it money,
well, what then are we to call those
objects that most economists call
"natural commodity monies"?
Barkley Rosser

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:27:20 -0700
>From: William F Hummel <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?
>To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Gunnar:
>
>>Re your comments:
>>
>>All time-consuming production of goods and services is
predicated on
>>Credit - in one form or another.
>
>Agreed.
>>
>>That is to say, Credit - "money" - precedes, and is pre-
condition, for
>>Government Taxation.
>
>Credit that precedes government taxation becomes fungible
with
>government fiat money only by government decree.  So your
argument
>applies only to local (credit) money.  It does not address
the subject
>of chartalism, which has meaning only in the context of a
_national_
>currency.
>
>Fungible credit money depends on the promise that it can be
converted
>at par to fiat money on demand.  You should therefore
explain how a
>national fiat currency and the credit it supports can long
exist
>without taxation.
>
>William
>
>
>
>