Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

["Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

bill,
     Not true.  Many, although not all, principles
texts usually do make some mention, even if
only briefly so, of the Marxian theory of value
and that it implies that profit is surplus value
exploited from workers.  The one I am currently
using to teach macro principles does so
for about a half a page  (Colander, 5th edn.).
I would grant that these books do not then
adopt this theory throughout as the corrrect one
to be generally used throughout.
      However, I have yet to see either a principles
or an intermediate level text on macro or
money even mention the chartalist theory.  I
would agree however, that this per se is not
a valid argument against either the usefulness
of the theory, much less against its ultimate
truth or falsity.  However, it is not clear to me
that one must accept chartalist definitions in
order to derive the fiscal policy arguments that
you make.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Mitchell" <ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?


> 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
>
>