What is money?

Smithin, John

doi:10.4324/9780203072691.ch1

Cited by 41 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, money is a subset of broader social relationships characterized by credit, debt, and obligation and is primarily implemented and moderated by a centralized and sovereign power, with its accounting systems and policing structures. Money is not a commodity, nor does its intrinsic worth matter, contrary to once regnant “metallist” theories (Smithin ; Ingham ; and Wray ). A governing authority has entered into such social relations, bringing its own methods of standardization as well as modes of coercion through laws that enforce terms of debts and repayments.…”

Section: Debts To Power Power's Debtmentioning

confidence: 86%

Sovereign Debt

Singh¹

2018

Journal of Religious Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay examines the concept of sovereign debt in both political‐economic and theological registers. Elaborating the dynamics of monetary economy, I demonstrate how postures of indebtedness characterize the relationship between sovereign power and the governed. While taxation signals the debt of obedience and fealty owed to sovereignty, the monetary circuit reveals that sovereign power exists in a state of indebtedness to the governed. The morally valenced proximity between debt and guilt helps to perpetuate such relations. Tracing these resonances and resemblances in the theological realm, I consider the centrality of debt as a structuring principle in key soteriological traditions within Christian thought. Not only does God appear to uphold debt logic, but God, I claim, becomes identified with debt and marked as a debtor. The divine sovereign as debtor and as enforcing debt provides cues for earthly sovereigns and legitimates cultures of debt. In light of the theopolitical legacy in the West, the mutual influence between theology and the political realm, refiguring this set of influential theological concepts may prove helpful in decentering debt as a governing principle in modern life.

show abstract

Section: Debts To Power Power's Debtmentioning

confidence: 86%

Sovereign Debt

Singh¹

2018

Journal of Religious Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many scholars have attempted to delve into the deep origins of credit and money. These include Graeber (2011), Henry (2004, Hudson (2004), Ingham (2000, Neale (1975), Peacock (2004), Polanyi (1966;1968), Smithin (2000), and Wray (1998;. There is again widespread agreement, particularly in Graeber's book, in rejecting the view that before the rise of money there was some barter economy, the transaction costs of which were lowered by the invention of money.…”

Section: Origins Of Moneymentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Wray (1998: 4) succinctly sums up this intellectual tradition by asserting that money is widely accepted because the 'state has the power to impose and enforce tax liabilities and because it has the right to choose, "that which is necessary to pay taxes (twintopt)."' It is only a small step to include A.M. Innes (1913;1914), John Commons, Harlan McCracken, Abba Lerner, Joseph Schumpeter, and Hyman Minsky to this list as Wray (2003a;2003b;, Smithin (2000) and Whalen (2011) aptly do. This basic intellectual history appears to be as accepted by most post-Keynesians and Institutionalists as it is ignored by other economists.…”

Section: Godley's Equation Ormentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Institutionalists and post-Keynesians share a common approach to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?

Nesiba

2013

EJEEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are Institutional and post-Keynesian economists converging on a shared approach to understanding Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)? The literature suggests growing recognition that post-Keynesians and Institutionalists share a common intellectual history, conceptual frameworks, and overlapping professional memberships. For this reason, PostKeynesian Institutionalism (PKI) has emerged as a unifying approach to heterodox economics. In this review of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) literature, I explore the degree to which this PKI convergence extends, or fails to extend, to the historical, theoretical, and policy issues surrounding MMT. The point of this paper is to delineate where scholars from these traditions agree, where they specifically disagree, and to explore whether or how these disagreements may be ameliorated with respect to MMT.

show abstract

“…Nous pensons principalement aux travaux de Randall Wray (1990) et à ceux réunis récemment par John Smithin (2000).…”

Section: Money-of-account Namely That In Which Debts and Prices And unclassified

Pour une théorie de l’institution monétaire : actualité du Treatise on Money*

Pineault

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Résumé Dans la première partie du Treatise on Money, Keynes se penche sur la nature de la monnaie en développant une approche que l’on peut qualifier « d’institutionnaliste ». Celle-ci inspire actuellement un foisonnement de travaux hétérodoxes sur la monnaie comme institution économique (Aglietta et Cartelier, 1999 ; Smithin, 2000). Nous souhaitons montrer qu’une théorie sociohistorique de l’institution monétaire peut puiser certains éléments conceptuels fondamentaux dans le Treatise on Money. Celui-ci contient des matériaux essentiels à la reconstruction de la sociologie de l’argent à partir d’une théorie de la monnaie comme unité de compte/moyen de paiement et d’une analyse du mode de production sociale de la monnaie-bancaire en tant qu’institution économique typiquement moderne.

show abstract

What is money?

Cited by 41 publications

References 11 publications

Sovereign Debt

Sovereign Debt

Do Institutionalists and post-Keynesians share a common approach to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?

Pour une théorie de l’institution monétaire : actualité du Treatise on Money*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About