Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

["Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     I have already noted that the "store of
value" function is the least important of the
three, and is often carried out more importantly
by things that are not generally considered to
be "money."
     I agree with William that there seems to
be either too fine a point being made here
or none at all.  Is the distinction between a
"store of value" and a "claim on value" of
any significance whatsoever?  Why would
a cowrie shell to someone in southern India
in the fifth century B.C.E. be a "store of value"
while the dollar bills stuffed in a mattress by
an 85 year old US widow who remembers
her family losing their savings in a bank
failure in the Great Depression be "claims
on value"?
      Regarding objects that store value
but are not generally money, I would note
the interesting historical example of cattle.
Thus, "capital" is a word derived from the
Latin for a head of cattle.  "Pecuniary"
comes from "pecus," Latin for a single
ox, and "fee" comes from "faihu," Old
German for cattle.  Certain words for
abstract units of account in West Africa
are derived from abstract concepts of
cattle.
      Regarding the matter of units of
account versus media of exchange, I would
note that during the European middle ages,
the pound (aka livre, lira, etc.) was not
an actual coin.  Established by Charlemagne
(aha, a blow for chartalism!), although I am
not sure that it was for the purposes of paying
taxes, it was supposed to be worth a pound
of silver.  But no such coins were ever issued.
Even in parts of Europe where the Holy Roman
Empire was not operational, the "pound"
(or linguistic variations noted above) operated
widely as a general unit of account.  Walter
Neale pointed out to me that it was never an
actual coin, even though I once thought that
pound weights that I saw in the Musee de
Cluny in Paris were such coins.  I was wrong.
Of course it was William the Conqueror who
carried the livre/pound to Britain, where it
persists, even though in the 1800s and early
1900s it was valued as an amount of gold rather
than silver.
Barkley Rosser
Barkley Rosser

----- Original Message -----
From: "William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?


> Gunnar writes:
> >
> >The "store of value" view of money is a carryover from Commodity Money
days.
> >
> >In the modern context, money is NOT a "STORE of value" - it has NO
intrinsic
> >value.
> >
> >Instead, modern money serves as "CLAIM on value".
> >
> >The State levies taxes to obtain "claims on value" generated in the
> >non-State sector.
> >
> >So does PRECISION OF LANGUAGE put Chartalism in its place!
> >
> In a word, no!  PRECISION OF LANGUAGE got lost somewhere.
> To argue that a claim cannot be not a store of value is to argue that
> only a physical object can be a store of value.  That would imply the
> very expression "store of value" is meaningless.
>
> PRECISION OF LOGIC shows that the state does not seek a "claim on
> value" because it has unlimited spending power through its own credit
> emission, backed by its to power to tax.  It levies taxes simply to
> maintain the value of its credit previously issued in the form of fiat
> money.
>
> William
>
>
>