Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

[William F Hummel <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gunnar wrote:

>William:
>
>Re. the following:
>
>> I haven't seen anyone assert that paying taxes DEFINES what money is.
>
>Comment:
>
>Here is Randy Wray on the subject matter:
>
>"In the Chartalist approach, money is a creature of the state; at least in
>the case of modern money, examples of stateless money are hard to come by.
>The state DEFINES money as that which it accepts at public pay offices
>(mainly in payment of taxes).  This has important policy implications.  Once
>the state imposes a tax on its citizens, payable in a money over which it
>has a monopoly of issue, it can influence the value of that money by setting
>the conditions under which the population can obtain it.  The government
>does not 'need' the public's money in order to spend; rather, the public
>needs the government's money in order to pay taxes.  This means that the
>government can 'buy' whatever is for sale in terms of its money merely by
>providing that money."  ('Understanding Modern Money', Edward Elgar, 1998,
>p. 18)
>
>And, of course, Randy is right.

Yes, I totally agree with Randy on this point, but I think you missed
the distinction between Barkley's words and Randy's words.  Barkley
defined money as an act, and Randy defined it as a thing.  That may
have been unintentional on Barkley's part, but I'm sure you will
appreciate the distinction.

William