著者

結城 剛志

出版者

埼玉大学経済学会

雑誌

社会科学論集 = SHAKAIKAGAKU-RONSHU (The Social Science Review) (ISSN:05597056)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.139, pp.117-129, 2013

---

This is a fragmental note for studying the theory of Credit Money and Cartalism. This note includes three fragments. The first fragment summarizes the theoretical understandings of the system of modern inconvertible bank notes. The second fragment describes the precedence studies in the theory of Cartalism. The third fragment introduces and considers the examination of ‘the theories of standard of money’ in “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” (Marx [1859]). How to understand the modern inconvertible bank notes is a very hot issue: It has been debated whether the notes are credit money or state paper money. The ‘inconvertible bank notes debate’ proposed a critical point of the theory of credit money that cannot explain the connection of gold money and inconvertible paper money. Traditional money-credit theory explains the credit money as convertible bank notes based on gold money, but the theory does not explain the inconvertible bank notes based on gold or any commodities consistently. The state money theory seems to explain the inconvertible bank notes successfully, but this theory has some theoretical inconsistency, too. In order to understand the modern system of money, this note summarizes the debate and picks up three issues, the concept of commodity, the interpretation of national bond as commodity, and the understanding of convertibility. The second fragment describes other doctrines explaining the inconvertible bank notes named cartalistic money, that is paper money which is not a commodity and contains no metal. The famous cartalist Birmingham school in the 19th century is criticized as ‘inflationist’ by Hawtrey [1928] or determined as ‘the doctrine of the ideal measure of money’ by Marx. The third fragment examines the definition of ‘the doctrine of the ideal measure of money’ and another version of cartalism, ‘the theory of the nominal standard of money’. The former theory is represented by Attwood and other Birmingham school theorists, the latter theory is represented by Steuart. Their considerations imply that these ideal money theories include three conditions of the ideal money: proportion to value, invariability of value, and arbitrariness of fixing a standard. However, we cannot approach credit money theory on this theoretical level, and we still have few clues between simple commodity circulation and the level of credit theory.

著者

結城 剛志

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.56, no.1, pp.73, 2019 (Released:2021-06-25)

著者

泉 正樹 結城 剛志

出版者

埼玉大学経済学会

雑誌

社会科学論集 = SHAKAIKAGAKU-RONSHU (The Social Science Review) (ISSN:05597056)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.146・147合併号, pp.43-58, 2016

---

This study analyses the major approaches to frameworks for understanding money. These approaches include those taken by the Marxian, post-Keynesian, and neo-classical schools, and sociologists. The theory of money and credit involves deeply controversial issues. Since the 1970s, financial speculation has been spreading more deeply within global capitalism. The sub-prime mortgage loan problem in the United States was one consequence of this phenomenon. The situation demands an inquiry into the basic question, ‘What is money’ ? In the 2000s, the journal Economy & Society presented an interdisciplinary exchange of opinions and criticism with respect to the traditional understanding of money in mainstream economics, that is, money as the medium of exchange. From a sociological viewpoint, Zelizer(2000) emphasises that money has ‘special’ implications when viewed with regard to different situations, thus it cannot be encapsulated by any single concept. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of post-Keynesian economics, Ingham(2001, 2004) insists that money is the social relation between debts and credits as represented by the money of account. However, from a Marxist viewpoint, Lapavitsas(2005b) understands money as the ‘monopolization of the ability to buy’. Thus, the concept of money has been interpreted in various ways by researchers in different disciplines. Nevertheless, these researchers all conclude that ‘fiat money’ is one of the conditions of money. However, some Japanese Marxian political economists have developed an alternative view which states that pure ‘fiat money’ cannot be explained in principle and does not exist in practice. On the basis of these Japanese studies, we analyse the relationship among these views and attempt to unravel the basic question, ‘What is money’ ?

著者

結城 剛志

出版者

The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.2, pp.19-35, 2006-12-20 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

26

---

In the early nineteenth-century, attempts were made to apply the labor theory of value in transactions based on “labor notes, ” or certificates obliging the bearer to perform labor in exchange for goods. Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Josiah Warren (1798-1874) both made such attempts. This paper is a comparative study of the ideas on labor notes in the theories of Robert Owen and Josiah Warren. Considerable research has been done on labor note theory, but so far the thinking of Warren and his experiments in the United States have received relatively little attention. My purpose here is to clarify the ideas of Warren in their theoretical and practical dimensions and compare them with those of Owen.Three factors may account for the still inadequate research on Warren's theory and its relation with Owen's theory. First, Marxist theory rejects the practice of labor notes as unfeasible, and considers the theory behind them to be “utopian” Second, contemporary research is affected by the failure of Owen's projects at New Harmony (1825-27, Indiana) and the National Equitable Labour Exchange (1832-34, London). This is the state of affairs in nineteenth-century English discourse. Third, most studies dealing with the theory behind labor notes are chiefly biographical treatments of Owen, despite the fact that Warren participated in New Harmony, and it influenced the development of his unique theory. In resuscitating Warren's ideas, specifically his labor notes theory, I propose that they represent a forgotten stage in nineteenth-century American thought, and for that reason merit serious study.In order to shed light on Warren's theory and that ‘forgotten stage, ’ I examine the relationship of Owen and Warren in New Harmony from four perspectives: their ideas and practices regarding forms of ownership; the problem of evaluating labor time; how to issue labor notes; and the relationship between price as a function of labor time and price as a representation of monetary value.

著者

結城 剛志

出版者

埼玉大学経済学会

雑誌

社会科学論集 = SHAKAIKAGAKU-RONSHU (The Social Science Review) (ISSN:05597056)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.152・153合併号, pp.41-60, 2018

---

Generally speaking, the Marxist approach cannot explain the modern banking system because of its stand on metallism. We find that this misapprehension occurs not only in Schumpeter’s summarization of monetary doctrines as metallism but also in Marx’s critique of Attwood’s ideal account of money. The former can be rectified easily by analyzing the concept of the commodity, but research on the latter has been limited. In Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie(1859), it seems that Marx supports the ‘real’ concept of money or money as metal since he obviously denies the ideal or nominal concept of money. However, this study provides another interpretation―that the notion of ‘ideal’ does not necessarily signify nonvalue nor need it be unrelated to the commodity economy in Marx’s sense ― by reconsidering the historical understanding of the debates regarding the ideal account of money. We focus on two letters from Attwood to the Earl of Liverpool indicating that Attwood’s concept of the ideal has three purposes. The first is to move the monetary system from the gold standard of value to the real value of the pound because economic subjects commonly have fine gold in mind when they present an ideal account of money rather than gold coins circulated as sovereigns. The second is to treat monetary value as inter-temporal because artificial changes in the standard of value can cause confusion in the credit-debt relationship. The third is to raise prices and promote national wealth by extending the Bank Restriction Act because reverting to the gold standard can lead both to depreciating prices and to a shrinking national economy. The result of the examination clarifies the linkage between the value of the ideal account of money and the commodity economy and considers inconsistencies in the concept of value in the two letters.

著者

結城 剛志

出版者

東京大学大学院経済学研究科 経済理論専攻

巻号頁・発行日

2010-03-10

---

報告番号: 甲25472 ; 学位授与年月日: 2010-03-10 ; 学位の種別: 課程博士 ; 学位の種類: 博士(経済学) ; 学位記番号: 博経第270号 ; 研究科・専攻: 経済学研究科経済理論専攻