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:
New Economics Foundation writes Is the Labour government delivering on its promises?
Robert Vienneau writes Why Is Marginalist Economics Wrong?
John Quiggin writes Dispensing with the US-centric financial system
New Economics Foundation writes Whose growth is it anyway?
| 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.