The case for the ontology of money as credit: money as bearer or basis of “value”

Kalim Siddiqui, Phil Armstrong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Although we acknowledge that, throughout history, commodities have been used as money “things” or money “signifiers”, commodities have never been money itself. We believe that the conflation of money with money “things” (commodities) in this way constitutes an ontological or category error. Austrian School economists and their Anglo-American neo-classical cousins favour a “conjectural” history of money where it is conceptualised as a cost-saving development of barter. Such a story supports their ethics. We reject any conjectural history which places the origin of money in the context of commodity exchange and instead support credit and state theories, and argue that in its essential nature, money is credit and nothing but credit.
Original languageEnglish
Article number6
Pages (from-to)98-118
Number of pages21
Journalreal-world economics review
Issue number90
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 3 Dec 2019

Fingerprint

Credit
Ontology
Commodities
History
Anglo-American
Category Error
Economists
State Theory
Ontological
Costs
Conflation

Cite this

@article{38be8b292f1e48b68be51db4a81fa5d9,
title = "The case for the ontology of money as credit: money as bearer or basis of “value”",
abstract = "Although we acknowledge that, throughout history, commodities have been used as money “things” or money “signifiers”, commodities have never been money itself. We believe that the conflation of money with money “things” (commodities) in this way constitutes an ontological or category error. Austrian School economists and their Anglo-American neo-classical cousins favour a “conjectural” history of money where it is conceptualised as a cost-saving development of barter. Such a story supports their ethics. We reject any conjectural history which places the origin of money in the context of commodity exchange and instead support credit and state theories, and argue that in its essential nature, money is credit and nothing but credit.",
keywords = "Commodity money, Universal equivalent, Unit of account,, Credit and state theories of money",
author = "Kalim Siddiqui and Phil Armstrong",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "3",
language = "English",
pages = "98--118",
journal = "real-world economics review",
number = "90",

}

The case for the ontology of money as credit : money as bearer or basis of “value”. / Siddiqui, Kalim; Armstrong, Phil.

In: real-world economics review, No. 90, 6, 03.12.2019, p. 98-118.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The case for the ontology of money as credit

T2 - money as bearer or basis of “value”

AU - Siddiqui, Kalim

AU - Armstrong, Phil

PY - 2019/12/3

Y1 - 2019/12/3

N2 - Although we acknowledge that, throughout history, commodities have been used as money “things” or money “signifiers”, commodities have never been money itself. We believe that the conflation of money with money “things” (commodities) in this way constitutes an ontological or category error. Austrian School economists and their Anglo-American neo-classical cousins favour a “conjectural” history of money where it is conceptualised as a cost-saving development of barter. Such a story supports their ethics. We reject any conjectural history which places the origin of money in the context of commodity exchange and instead support credit and state theories, and argue that in its essential nature, money is credit and nothing but credit.

AB - Although we acknowledge that, throughout history, commodities have been used as money “things” or money “signifiers”, commodities have never been money itself. We believe that the conflation of money with money “things” (commodities) in this way constitutes an ontological or category error. Austrian School economists and their Anglo-American neo-classical cousins favour a “conjectural” history of money where it is conceptualised as a cost-saving development of barter. Such a story supports their ethics. We reject any conjectural history which places the origin of money in the context of commodity exchange and instead support credit and state theories, and argue that in its essential nature, money is credit and nothing but credit.

KW - Commodity money

KW - Universal equivalent

KW - Unit of account,

KW - Credit and state theories of money

UR - http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/

M3 - Article

SP - 98

EP - 118

JO - real-world economics review

JF - real-world economics review

IS - 90

M1 - 6

ER -