Abstract
This article was prompted by Kelton and is a belated response to Wray (2016), who presents an argument for the so-called chartalist view that government currency is valued because it can be “redeemed” in tax payments. Wray’s article presents historical cases to back up the idea. This article responds to the arguments therein, and the chartalist position in general, by pointing out logical errors in the argument and showing that Wray’s examples fail to support the theory. It demonstrates that the chartalist argument, as presented and argued for by Wray, is flawed and that tax liabilities are insufficient (and unnecessary) to qualify something as money.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
