Ontology Of Money Research Articles

From Babylon to Bitcoin: some philosophical reflections on the ontology of money

From Babylon to Bitcoin: some philosophical reflections on the ontology of money

Why Money Matters: Debating the Social Construction of Monetary Value and the Concept of Money as Debt

This article evaluates the major gaps in the state of the art regarding the socioeconomic literature on money. It examines current debates on the ontology of money and the concept of money as debt. It asserts the idea that money is essentially the result of a human cognitive property by means of which we establish a general measure of value that can be applied to valuing things, goods, or services. Money is the institutionlization of an abstract measure of value, not the object being measured, nor a tool for valuation. This article argues that understanding the social nature of money as a social institution is fundamental to comprehending the role it plays in organizing the economy and social life.

Two Sides of the Same Coin: the Ontology of Money in the Political Economies of David Hume and Adam Smith

"This paper analyses how the so-called metallist theory of money gave way to functionalism in early modernity. Theoretical metallism held that something, in order to perform the role of money, must bear some intrinsic value. Functionalism, on the contrary, endorsed a social ontology of money claiming that anything could perform that role as long as it was accepted as a means of payment. The paper argues that the early modern discovery of the so-called quantity theory of money played a key role in this transition, since this was the idea to question the inherent valueproofness of commodity money for the first time in history. According to our claim, commodity money was gradually replaced by fiat currencies after the former was no longer was regarded as more valueproof than the latter, and this theoretical struggle is clearly documented by Hume’s and Smith’s respective remarks on the subject. Keywords: quantity theory of money, theoretical metallism, theoretical functionalism, Luis de Molina, John Locke, John Law, David Hume, Adam Smith "

In defence of the nominalist ontology of money

“Historicizing the money of account: a critique of the nominalist ontology of money” (Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 3, 43) argues that “money itself” is always something more than money of account; that nominalists mistakenly believe that Keynes shared their position; and that money of account is historically specific to medieval Europe. This response contends that the case is based on misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and imprecise arguments.

Reflections on the Ontology of Money

Abstract The suggestions outlined here include the following. Money is a bundle of institutionally sustained causal powers. Money is an institutional universal instantiated in generic currencies and particular money tokens. John Searle’s account of institutional facts is not helpful for understanding the nature of money as an institution (while it may help to illuminate aspects of the nature of currencies and money particulars). The money universal is not a social convention in David Lewis’s sense (while currencies and money particulars are characterized by high degrees of conventionality). The existence of the money universal is dependent on a larger institutional structure and cannot be understood in terms of collective belief or acceptance or agreement separately focusing on money. These claims have important implications for realism about money.

Money, State, Hegemony: A Political Ontology of Money

ABSTRACTThis article develops a political understanding of the money-form, its relation to value, to society, and to the state. It argues that the value of assets is based on societal relations. These value relations are expressed in a general measure of value – money. Money serves as the equivalent for all asset values. This general equivalent is conceptualized as a master signifier. Based on Laclau’s political theory and theories of International Political Economy, the article argues that it is the master signifier, which not only defines the assets’ value relations, but also constitutes the assets by assigning value. It follows that the value of an asset can only be determined when it can be expressed in money, and that asset values can only be made comparable when they can be related to this general money-form. Furthermore, the transition from a specific object or credit to the money-form is theorized as a political process. Money ultimately represents a specific political relationship resulting from hegemonic struggles. To conceptualize money as a master signifier makes it possible to understand money not as a neutral measure of abstract value but as a general measure of value relations resulting from political processes and social struggles.

Two Questions on the Ontology of Money. An Imaginary Dialogue between John Rogers Searle and Maurizio Ferraris

This dialogue reflects and synthesized the content of a recent publication (Einaudi, 2018) entitled Il denaro e i suoi inganni (by John R. Searle and Maurizio Ferraris, ed. by Angela Condello). The two philosophers present their perspectives on the ontology of money, which are different and yet interestingly intertwined. On the one hand, Searle returns on the crucial function of intentionality in the construction of social reality: it is intentionality that gives value to banknotes. On the other hand, Ferraris responds with his theory of documentality, that today – with bitcoins and blockchains – must be defined as “documediality”. Money emerges as the paradigmatic social object, which we should observe as a meaningful symbol of contemporary societies.

A critique of Lawson’s ‘Social positioning and the nature of money’

This article challenges Tony Lawson’s claim (Lawson, 2016) that his ontology of money as the ‘social positioning’ of ‘prior value’ is more sustainable than prominent existing theories and is able therefore to reconcile their putative incompatibility.

The ontology of money

Tony Lawson’s recent foray into social ontology in this Journal takes, as its subject, money. This essay examines Lawson’s ontological analysis of money with a view to clarifying the compatibility between his ontological position and credit theories of money, especially those which stand in the chartalist tradition. It also examines Lawson’s claims about commodity theories of money in light of credit theorists’ pronunciations on commodity theories.

Cigarettes, dollars and bitcoins – an essay on the ontology of money

AbstractWhat does being money consist in? We argue that something is money if, and only if, it is typically acquired in order to realise the reduction in transaction costs that accrues in virtue of agents coordinating on acquiring the same thing when deciding what thing to acquire in order to exchange. What kinds of things can be money? We argue against the common view that a variety of things (notes, coins, gold, cigarettes, etc.) can be money. All monetary systems are best interpreted as implementing the same basic protocol. Money, i.e. the thing that we coordinate on acquiring in order to lower our transaction costs, is, in all cases, a set of positions on an abstract mathematical object, namely a relative ratio scale. The things that we ordinarily call ‘money’ are merely records of positions on such a scale.

The Significance of Money Beyond Ingham’s Sociology of Money

AbstractUnderstanding money requires that we first grasp what makes money so significant—sovaluable—to us. The article thus examines the sociology outlined by Geoffrey Ingham and criticises its ontology of money as ameasure of valueunderpinned by state authority. By contrast, it argues that money ought to be primarily intended asvalue in itself. Accordingly, money’s most specific attribute is none of its canonical functions but rather purchasing power: the powernotto pay, or else the power tobuy time. The latter is not the mere product of state (fiscal) agency, but is entangled from the start with the production of liquidity and the construction of speculative markets for debt. Thus the paper emphasises the importance of concrete bankdiscounting vis-à-vis abstract accounting in concrete processes of monetisation, and shows how modern money, far from cancelling debts, is historically constructed within liquid financial relations so as to “buy time” and systematically procrastinate the final “rendering of accounts” for debtors. As a result, money cannot exist without the simultaneous existence of a debt that it will never discharge.

Fiscal Austerity and Quantitative Easing: A Modern Monetary Critique of the Mainstream Neoclassical View

Only by having a proper understanding of the function of money and finance in the economy can we hope to correctly inform decision making in monetary and fiscal policy. This paper will argue that neoclassical economics fails to do this, which results in suboptimal decision making from policymakers.This paper will examine the origin and ontology of money with particular reference to the difference between fixed or commodity-based views of money on the one hand and more credit-based theories on the other. This will lead to a better understanding of the development of neoclassical theories of economics, where money is seen as fixed or neutral and simply facilitating exchange. I propose that a better theory is a heterodox theory of money and economics in which the credit-based nature of money is key to understanding the role of credit it in the economy.In particular this paper will look at two areas of policy currently prevalent in economies that are suffering weak growth post the Global Financial Crisis. These are Quantitative Easing (QE) and Fiscal Austerity. The paper will analyse data from the economies of countries that have engaged in these policies in an attempt to establish the success or otherwise of the policies.Furthermore, the paper will attempt to evidence my view that by applying theories from outside the mainstream schools of economics, such as the Modern Monetary School, we can better understand the failure of these policies to return economies to trend rates of growth and employment.

Keynes's theories of money and banking in the <i>Treatise</i> and <i>The General Theory</i>

This paper identifies what seem to have been the five main issues in contention in monetary theory, both historically and in the current era, and discusses the view that J.M. Keynes took on each of them in the Treatise on Money and The General Theory. The key issues in monetary theory are the ontology of money, endogenous versus exogenous money, interest-rate determination, the choice of the monetary policy instrument, and the neutrality versus non-neutrality of money.

Further reflections on the ontology of money: responses to Lapavitsas and Dodd

The debate on the nature of money, its origins and conditions of existence has been recently taken further in separate articles in Economy and Society by Lapavitsas and Dodd. Both criticize Ingham's elaboration of Keynes's contention that the money of account is the primary concept in a theory of money. Lapavitisas reiterates and extends his Marxist analysis of money's origins as a universal equivalent in commodity exchange. This fails to explain the existence of a money of account, without which genuinely market exchange cannot take place. Dodd's claim to furnish a much-needed analytical refinement in the analysis of money, used to criticize Ingham's position, is shown to be based on a re-statement of an established and widely accepted distinction in monetary theory.