Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

["Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     Well, actually this is less than clear.
If one goes along with the idea that the
true nature of money is a unit of account,
then its specific "thingness" is essentially
irrelevant.  Thus, in the US today the money
is the "dollar."  But, what is a dollar?  Almost
nobody goes in with paper dollar bills (or
higher denominated bills, or a bunch of coins)
to pay their taxes.  Most pay by check, but
some pay by credit card now.  As noted
already, many governments will accept all
kinds of forms of payment, with the list of
objects accepted by colonial governments
in America becoming quite long in some cases,
well beyond coonskins and tobacco.  Did
that make all of these objects money?
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?


> 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
>
>
>