Search

Examines the relations of power and trust as components of contemporary money and finance. Significant aspects of contemporary money and finance namely personal finance, independent central banking and world money; Economic and social power of money; Role of trust in credit transactions.

Money's emergence in commodity exchange remains an unresolved issue within economic theory. Current general equilibrium models offer an explanation that rests on the economic advantages of a universally accepted means of exchange that is partly established through social custom. These models neither fully explain money's unique ability to buy, nor theorise the customary practices required for money's emergence. They are dominated by Menger's earlier analysis of money's emergence, which pays more attention to the social foundations of money but is still hampered by Austrian individualism. An alternative explanation is given here, drawing on Marx's theory of value but involving a thorough reworking of it. An analytical process is established through which money finally emerges as monopolist of the ability to buy. Particular social custom, whose determinants are consistent with the social underpinnings of commodity exchange, plays a vital role in money's emergence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent debate in Economy and Society , Ingham criticized Marxist theory of money on the grounds that it relates money to commodities through the labour theory of value, while ignoring credit money. Ingham suggested instead that money is constituted by social relations characteristic of credit, namely relations of ‘promise to pay’. Drawing on Marx, this article shows that, pace Ingham, it is necessary theoretically to relate money to commodities. Money is indeed constituted by social relations, but these are commercial relations among ‘foreign’ commodity owners, not credit relations. The social relations of money are successfully captured by Marx's concept of the universal equivalent, when that is interpreted as monopoly over the ability to buy. In this light, both commodity and credit money are forms of the universal equivalent, but qualitatively different from each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new interpretation (NI) offers a particular understanding of important problems in value theory, especially the value of money and labor power and the structure and dynamics of capitalist accumulation. The NI is to be welcomed for raising these issues but not for the way in which it has dealt with them. Above all, the NI falsely assumes that value is directly and immediately represented by money. The authors propose alternatives that emphasize the processes (mediations) through which value is expressed as price. They draw on an alternative methodology and understanding of money, the value of labor power, and production and circulation of capital in the context of accumulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monetary theory based on commodity money possesses sound foundations for analysis of capitalist monetary phenomena. "Valueless" forms of money (fiat and credit) have their roots in the nature and functions of commodity money. The evolution of the form of money is explained by the adequacy of each particular form for the functions which money is called to perform in capitalist exchange. Performing these functions encourages the development of money's form, leading to the emergence of several types of non-commodity ("valueless") money. This paper considers especially the adequacy of commodity, fiat, and credit money as means of exchange; adequacy is fully specified by examining determination of the exchange value of these forms of money. The process of determination is different for each: spontaneous hoarding for the first, arbitrary specification of quantity for the second, credit advance and repayment for the third. In this context, it is shown that the intrinsic value of commodity money can play an anchoring role for money's exchange value. The quantity theory of money has explanatory power with regard to the exchange value of fiat money and, under certain conditions, of credit money. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the issue of how the market and the non-market are to be understood especially by concentrating on the theory of money. For mainstream economics, the market is simply an institution facilitating exchange, money being the key instrument for alleviating the inefficiencies of barter. In contrast, recent work in other social sciences, such as that by Zelizer, distinguishes among markets, and various roles of money, depending on cultural and social content. While being sympathetic to such an approach, we claim that the commodity is a better analytical starting point than the market. Based on Marx's work, we then show what commodities have in common and establish a common essence for money as generalized purchasing power. This is a peculiarly bland essence that allows money to undertake the variety of social roles identified by Zelizer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a structural analysis of the theory of credit money. Connection between the forms of money and the functions it performs in capitalist exchange; Derivation and characteristics of credit money; Qualitative difference among different forms of money.