Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

William:

Re. the following:

I think this exchange is now the realm of semantics - definitions -
not substance.

Comment:

The distinction between "definitions" and "substance" makes no sense in
either mathematics or physics.

For example, the "substance" of Euclidean geometry derives from Euclid's
"definitions."

Ditto for, say, the relationship between "substance" and "definitions" in
Classical, Relativistic, and Quantum Mechanics.

When used to denote real-world applicability, the concept of "substance"
exemplifies "misplaced concreteness".

For, as the saying goes, it is predicated on mistaking map for territory.

A mistake which is deeply ingrained in much of modern economic "theorizing".

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gunnar Tómasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?


Gunnar wrote:

>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 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.
>
I am not arguing that money IS wealth.  I am arguing that money is a
"store of wealth", an abstraction.  A claim on an object is a store of
wealth in terms of that object.  Money is a generalized claim on
objects.  That does not imply that the monetary value of the objects
money can buy must be constant.  It is sufficient that their monetary
value not vanish.

I think this exchange is now the realm of semantics - definitions -
not substance.

William