Abstract
There are two fundamental approaches to the nature and origin of money that are incompatible with each other: money-commodity and money-debt. The first one has occupied a hegemonic position in the academy —and so outside it— throughout history. On the other hand, the money-debt approach was developed in response to the conventional view, although it currently occupies a marginal place in the academic sphere and is barely known beyond it. Despite its low popularity, the unorthodox outlook of money-debt is much more useful in order to understand the origin and nature of money; and represents a much more accurate analytical framework to monetary phenomena. In this paper a detailed review of the origin of money from this less-known approach is made in order to demonstrate its analytical superiority against the hegemonic approach that suffers from significant theoretical inconsistencies and a lack of empirical support.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought
Disclaimer: 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.
