Re: Putting Chartalism In Its Place?

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

Ted - This is a good example of what I meant when said that chartalism
is not a complete theory or analysis of all aspects of money. Once money
is in existence it becomes many things to many people, it has multiple
symbolic values, etc.  I think your analysis of Keynes's monetary
outlook, or Kurke's in her COINS, GAMES, BODIES, AND GOLD, or Zelizer's
in her THE SOCIAL MEANING OF MONEY, are all consistent with chartalism.
We need to understand what the claims of chartalism are--it covers some
specific important aspects of monetary analysis, but we should not think
that it is about more than it is, if that makes sense. Again, part of
the responsibility rests on those who have started to elaborate the
theory--I again point to the fact that when a new or revived theory is
laid out, there is a tendency to state it in very strong, stark terms,
to distinguish it from the conventional views. Now is the time for the
more nuanced and historical analysis. Best, Mat