Three difficulties with neo-chartalism
Neo-chartalists have made three assertions that deserve qualification: (1) money has value because the state accepts it for the payment of taxes, (2) the state has the ability to determine its value, and (3) private bank money can be understood as a "leverage" of fiat money. Conversely, we believe that money is accepted in the last instance because it is useful for cancelling bank debt; the power of the state to determine its purchasing power is limited, and bank deposits are not a leverage of fiat money. These criticisms do not challenge the validity of the whole approach but aim to make it clearer.
Year of publication: |
2009
|
---|---|
Authors: | Febrero, Eladio |
Published in: |
Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. - M.E. Sharpe, Inc., ISSN 0160-3477. - Vol. 31.2009, 3, p. 523-541
|
Publisher: |
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. |
Subject: | credit-driven money | neo-chartalism | tax-driven money |
Saved in:
freely available
Saved in favorites
Similar items by subject
-
Complementary currencies: History, theory, prospects
Peacock, Mark S, (2014)
-
Towards a pure state theory of money
Ballinger, Clint, (2013)
-
Do Institutionalists and post-Keynesians share a common approach to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?
Nesiba, Reynold F., (2013)
- More ...
Similar items by person