Re: (OPE-L) Re: on money substance and abstract labor

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Jun 08 2004 - 17:33:10 EDT

It is worse than that Gerry. If we take Clauses argument seriously
money no longer exists.

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Gerald A. Levy
Sent: 08 June 2004 11:39
Subject: (OPE-L) Re: on money substance and abstract labor

Hi Claus.

It's good to hear from you again.

(Paul C wrote:)
> > 3. The Pound Sterling had multiple  representations in common use:
> >      a) Bank of England Notes.
> >      b) Bank of Scotland Notes.
> >      c) Bank notes of other commercial banks.
> >      d) Cheques drawn on these banks. <snip, JL>
(Claus replied, in part:)
> This list is not of equal 'representations' of the Pound Sterling. It is
> the Pound Sterling that was the representation or the official name of the
> unit of the money material. All kinds of Bank notes and of cheques, as
> well as the bills of exchange that originated them, were just certificates
> of debt of amounts of money units (Pound Sterlings). They are all
> technically forms of credit money, not of money.

A couple of brief questions about the last sentence above.

1) Why isn't credit money a form of money?

b) Does the above mean that you don't think that credit money
     is part of the money supply?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 13 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT