Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

["Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Gunnar,
     In arguing about whether or not
money is a store of or claim on value,
one had better decide if there is agreement
on what value is.  Smith said it was the stuff
that one could buy with money.  Some on
this list would say that it is the socially necessary
labor time that was used to produce the stuff
that one can buy with money, or that the value
of money is the socially necessary labor time it
took to produce the commodities used as money.
     This is a lot worse than you thought, quite
aside from worrying about "the residual."
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunnar Tómasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?


> Re. the following:
>
> > >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.
>
> Comment:
>
> Indeed!
>
> This is what Adam Smith had to say about it in Wealth of Nations:
>
> "It would be too ridiculous to go about seriously to prove that wealth
does
> not consist in money, or in gold and silver; but in what money purchases
and
> is valuable only for purchasing."
>
> In other words, Smith held to be self-evident that "wealth" does not
> "consist in money" - whence it follows that "money" cannot be "store" of
> "wealth".
>
> At first glance, it may seem that Smith has it all wrong - that, surely,
> "gold and silver" are "wealth".
>
> True - but Smith is concerned with "money" QUA "money".
>
> A foundational concept for coherent monetary economics.
>
> Gunnar
>
>
> ----- 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>