by Summary:
Is money a creature or comodity?
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Is money a creature or comodity?
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Jeremy Smith writes UK workers’ pay over 6 years – just about keeping up with inflation (but one sector does much better…)
Robert Vienneau writes The Emergence of Triple Switching and the Rarity of Reswitching Explained
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Schuldenbremse bye bye
Robert Skidelsky writes Lord Skidelsky to ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy with regard to the Ukraine war following the new policy of the government of the United States of America.
| Is money a creature or comodity? |
What a surprise! Maybe this is the reason why it is all about numbers. How long did it took economist to find out, that money is not a commodity?
Many of them still think money is a commodity. If they even "think" about money at all.
@The California Dream they must think it.
The idea of the market is their alternative to a state. So it has to work without a state. And also without any other relationships between the actors, who are only individualists. Maggie Thatcher sumed it up to this: "There is no such thing as a society!"
So you enter the market, whenever you want and you leave it whenever you want. The only thing you do on a market is exchanging commodities in order not to create any relationships. So the only explaination for money to keep this idea of a market alive, is a commodity.
When money is about debt and bookkeeping of the debt in a society, you have a dense network of relationships and because of this a society. And at some point also a government, since somebody has to take care, that debtors service their debt – which is the opposite of which should be achieved by having a market.