Now how do the observations above [of David Graeber] fit in with other theories of money’s origins such as(1) the barter spot trade origin theory (e.g., held by Adam Smith, Mill, Menger and Mises),(2) the credit origin theory (Mitchell Innes), (3) chartalism (Knapp), and (4) Grierson’s (1977 and 1978) thesis on wergeld and money?And how does it fit in with the empirical evidence that a unit of account was developed by planners in temple institutions in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia?
It fact, I would contend that it is perfectly complementary, because no single theory is the entire story. The subject of the origins of money is a deeply complex and difficult problem, and these are all pieces of the puzzle. It is obvious that the historical origin of money cannot be traced to one moment of invention in the past: for there have undoubtedly been multiple independent instances in history where things have emerged as a unit of account and medium of exchange in different societies in different times.Read it at Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective
Observations on Non-Commercial Money
by Lord Keynes
Posts
3 comments:
Tom,
Washington Post does MMT - Modern Monetary Theory, an unconventional take on economic strategy
Quote:
About 11 years ago, Jamie Galbraith recalls, hundreds of his fellow economists laughed at him. To his face. In the White House.
It was April 2000, and Galbraith had been invited by President Bill Clinton to speak on a panel about the budget surplus. Galbraith was a logical choice. A public policy professor at the University of Texas and former head economist for the Joint Economic Committee, he wrote frequently for the press and testified before Congress.
Thanks, Clonal. Promoted to post.
In biology, they have developed a hierarchical classification system to adequately identify different things that they study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification
It seems like often in economics, they keep arguing about what are different things under a higher category of classification ("money"), and trying to claim that their particularly favorite "species" solely represents the whole "kingdom" if you will.
As I read these types of assertions, to me, an outsider, it is looking ever more irrational at best.
Seems like there are many different sub-categories of "money", ie State Currency, Precious Metal Tokens, Talley Sticks, Barter Commodities, etc... with their different characteristics; just as there are "apples" and "oranges" under the overall kingdom of "fruit".
Why all the conflict and argument about which one "is money"?
To in effect argue that "apples are fruit" vs "no, oranges are fruit" is looking ever more irrational to me anyway, and perhaps sadly characteristic of a segment of the orthodox academe, ie economics, that is descending into lower and lower levels of human mental psychosis.
Sad to watch, and even worse to be indirectly affected by thru the policy that this irrational body of people have influence over.
Resp,
Post a Comment