Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

[Bill Mitchell <ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 14:59 15/09/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>      All that I have been objecting to here
> is the scattered use by some folks on the
> list of the idea that it is paying taxes that
> DEFINES what money is.  I am perfectly
> amenable to the idea that in modern fiat
> economies, this is a very important part
> of what money is.
>      When I pick up an intro textbook or a
> text on monetary theory, I never find the
> chartalist theory put forward as the definition
> of what money is.  One can easily lapse
> into sneering that well these are all just
> neoclassical mainstream garbage books.
> But I would note that such a view is not
> universal even among Post Keynesians,
> not to mention many other heterodox
> economists, much less among the
> mainstream.


similarly, if you read the same books you will not find any reference to
profit reflecting
surplus value which might be a reflection of the tendency of economists to
examine
things at the exchange level (superficial) and not understand the intrinsic
causalities.

a majority of pkt's probably don't even relate sv to profits. so what that
does tell us?

also, the overwhelming majority of economists including PKTs still offer
dialogue
in their books about there being financial constraints on government
(federal) spending
and that spending beyond taxes (income??) must be financed by debt. If
there are no
financial constraints on government then what do taxes really do as opposed
to what
we (superficially within the GBC framework) think they do?

best wishes
bill


------

William F. Mitchell
Professor of Economics
Director, Centre of Full Employment and Equity
University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: +61-2 4921 5027
Fax:   +61-2 4921 6919
Mobile: 0419 422 410

WWW Home Pages:
http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
http://www.billmitchell.org