[Crantag]

Central banks are important employers and monetary policy an important topic in academia. I don't perceive it as arcane at all.

Important employers? Want to translate what this phrase is supposed to mean?

Obviously 'monetary theory' is at the central core of mainstream economic orthodoxy. Analysis of the fundamentals underlying what, exactly, money is, is quite rare. I've searched.

It is a complicated topic matter, but also one of pretty fundamental significance to the life of society and people.

A few examples of attempts at analysis that come to mind:

It was actually fundamental to Keynes. He wrote a Treatise on it. (Keynes of course had a particular understanding of money which is integrated in Keynesianism.)

Costas Lapavistas and Makoto Itoh wrote The Political Economy of Money and Finance. It largely begins with the Currency vs Banking school debates in England in the 18th and 19th century.

Also, in the book Currency Wars by Song Hongbing a lot of interesting serious commentary is presented. (In Chinese. The book isn't available in English, and I had to resort to Google-translating a French translation).

David Graeber sort of took a stab at it in Debt: The First 5000 Years.

And of course, Marx had some relevant contributions.

Also, Karl Polayni in the context of the Gold Standard.

Obviously there are more, but it isn't a topic which is overly studied, much less widely understood (and no, monetarism is not what I'm talking about; although the monetarist theories are a part of the picture and the conversation, to be sure).

By 'Arcane' I mean that the Central Banks are like wizards, with tremendous power over the weather conditions of the economy, which is exerted through their roles as currency managers. They are also shrouded in mystery. Hence the magic analogy.

[Rugoz]

Important employers? Want to translate what this phrase is supposed to mean?

They employ a lot of economists.

Obviously 'monetary theory' is at the central core of mainstream economic orthodoxy. Analysis of the fundamentals underlying what, exactly, money is, is quite rare. I've searched.

Money can be whatever is easily exchanged and keeps its value (or changes its value in predictable ways). The more interesting question is whether it was inevitable that banks settle in central bank money.

I plan to read this:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/pdf/rese ... er_412.pdf

[Crantag]

Money can be whatever is easily exchanged and keeps its value (or changes its value in predictable ways). The more interesting question is whether it was inevitable that banks settle in central bank money.

I think that the most unique and original treatment of money I've encountered is by Karl Polayni (The Great Transformation--1944), in the context of his 'fictitious commodities'. The three main 'fictitious commodities' are land, labor, and money.

Essentially, the march of modern society has led to the conscious and unconscious drive to subject everything to the logic of the market. For those 'fictitious commodities' though, fully doing so is impossible and will lead to inert tensions, which will at some point come to a head, and ultimately and inevitably destroy those institutions, and/or the society (writing in the 1940s during the war years, Polayni regarded several decades of the rise and spread of fascism (which he had a unique and broad understanding of) as one common manifestation of this).

According to Polayni, the aforementioned three fictitious commodities (and perhaps there are others he didn't get to. I don't think it is clear from his analysis, which was incomplete; after the war, he turned to more historical analysis, in the climate of the Cold War. At the time he taught at Columbia, but lived in Canada and commuted because his wife was banned from entering the US because of communist ties.) Land is the commodification of nature; labor is the commodification of man; and money is the commodification of the means of social exchange.

Polayni analyzes legal institutions which were devised to further the subjugation of these entities to market logic, such as the Poor Laws and Enclosure Act in England, and the Gold Standard.

A commodity is something which is produced for sale. Markets are one thing when it comes to genuine commodities, but you can't treat a human the same way as a genuine commodity without destroying the underlying entity. For instance, it was only after the Gold Standard that national and international goings on, through the movement of the currencies, would come to have direct consequences to the experiences in local economies.

Polayni is probably the foremost critic of economic liberalism. He spent a number of years in Vienna after WW1, and was a fierce opponent of the early Austrian School, and Ludwig von Mises (and others.) Polayni viewed the Gold Standard (which was indeed a magnificent achievement) as sowing the seeds for the collapse of civilization through the two world wars.

(...)

Anyway, I think I'll pinch it off.

I reckon it depends on one's area of intellectual interest when it comes to questions like understanding and defining money. I have been accused of being drawn to the esoteric, at the expense of the modern and practical when it comes to academic interest. But I do think the 'esoteric' is important to a deep understanding of society. How practical is it? I don't know.

I've often been impressed though by your knowledge and the different perspectives you bring.

[Hindsite]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52236936

According to the IMF, poor nations are going to need hundreds of billions of dollars in state aid during a time when Western nations are tripling their already colossus debt. 3.3 billion people have had their place of work partially or fully closed, another record breaking week of unemployment in America, poor and emerging nations are hardest hit, EU nations cant agree monetary measures to tackle this crisis and people still think economic factors shouldn't be a factor in our decision making.

Does people going hungry and starving mean nothing?

More fake news.

[B0ycey]

More fake news.

So you're not expecting any fallout from this? Those unemployment figures are fake news.

Does anyone take you seriously on here? Or do you write this shit for kicks?

Also:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52279871

UKs economy is on course for a reduction of 35%.

[Hindsite]

So you're not expecting any fallout from this? Those unemployment figures are fake news.

Does anyone take you seriously on here? Or do you write this shit for kicks?

Also:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52279871

UKs economy is on course for a reduction of 35%.

Sure there will be some problems, but my view is that the fake news media are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill again.

[B0ycey]

Sure there will be some problems, but my view is that the fake news media are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill again.

...but on this occasion they simply reported the conclusions of the IMF. Are they fake news?

Not everything is about Trump vs CNN

[Hindsite]

...but on this occasion they simply reported the conclusions of the IMF. Are they fake news?

Not everything is about Trump vs CNN

And I was simply reporting my opinion.

[B0ycey]

And I was simply reporting my opinion.

And what opinion is that? You never gave one! You said fake news and blamed the media. This thread is about an IMF report!!!

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEDIA!

[Hindsite]

And what opinion is that? You never gave one! You said fake news and blamed the media. This thread is about an IMF report!!!

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEDIA!

My opinion is that the fake news media are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, as they usually do by reporting what one hysterical woman said.

[B0ycey]

My opinion is that the fake news media are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, as they usually do.

Then you should have put that opinion in the Trump vs CNN thread. This one is about the IMF report on the global economic impact from Covid19. It has nothing to do with the media.

#neargeniusmyarse

[Hindsite]

Then you should have put that opinion in the Trump vs CNN thread. This one is about the IMF report on the global economic impact from Covid19. It has nothing to do with the media.

#neargeniusmyarse

They reported the hysterical opinion of one woman. As president Trump has calmly said, the economy will recover rather quickly.

[Rugoz]

I think that the most unique and original treatment of money I've encountered is by Karl Polayni (The Great Transformation--1944), in the context of his 'fictitious commodities'. The three main 'fictitious commodities' are land, labor, and money.

Essentially, the march of modern society has led to the conscious and unconscious drive to subject everything to the logic of the market. For those 'fictitious commodities' though, fully doing so is impossible and will lead to inert tensions, which will at some point come to a head, and ultimately and inevitably destroy those institutions, and/or the society (writing in the 1940s during the war years, Polayni regarded several decades of the rise and spread of fascism (which he had a unique and broad understanding of) as one common manifestation of this).

According to Polayni, the aforementioned three fictitious commodities (and perhaps there are others he didn't get to. I don't think it is clear from his analysis, which was incomplete; after the war, he turned to more historical analysis, in the climate of the Cold War. At the time he taught at Columbia, but lived in Canada and commuted because his wife was banned from entering the US because of communist ties.) Land is the commodification of nature; labor is the commodification of man; and money is the commodification of the means of social exchange.

Polayni analyzes legal institutions which were devised to further the subjugation of these entities to market logic, such as the Poor Laws and Enclosure Act in England, and the Gold Standard.

A commodity is something which is produced for sale. Markets are one thing when it comes to genuine commodities, but you can't treat a human the same way as a genuine commodity without destroying the underlying entity. For instance, it was only after the Gold Standard that national and international goings on, through the movement of the currencies, would come to have direct consequences to the experiences in local economies.

Looks like he rejects civilization altogether.

[late]

As president Trump has calmly said, the economy will recover rather quickly.

His inability to work the problem will eventually land us in a depression.

There's a small chance we can avoid that if we pick a different president.

[Crantag]

Looks like he rejects civilization altogether.

I don't think I would characterise him that way. He rejects society dominated by market logic. This is informed by his detailed explicit, evidence-based rejection of the familiar mythology that market logic has dominated human society since time immemorial (this mythology is often represented on this site). By way of one illustration, he characterizes Adam Smith as describe a world which was emerging, but which did not yet exist (we might say that in Smith's time it was embryonic-- in the view of Polayni).

With that, I will also point out that you are not going to get any kind of balanced impression of Polayni just from reading my posts, which have really been quite focused on a couple of questions. Polayni is a bit complex and also very original.

Polayni also had a background in Christian socialism, which probably informed some of his worldview.

[Tainari88]

I don't think I would characterise him that way. He rejects society dominated by market logic. This is informed by his detailed explicit, evidence-based rejection of the familiar mythology that market logic has dominated human society since time immemorial (this mythology is often represented on this site). By way of one illustration, he characterizes Adam Smith as describe a world which was emerging, but which did not yet exist (we might say that in Smith's time it was embryonic-- in the view of Polayni).

With that, I will also point out that you are not going to get any kind of balanced impression of Polayni just from reading my posts, which have really been quite focused on a couple of questions. Polayni is a bit complex and also very original.

Polayni also had a background in Christian socialism, which probably informed some of his worldview.

Sometimes I wish you had a blog Crantag. I really love your explanations.

You are right about Polayni. You are right about his Christian Socialism.

I like reading Michael Harrington going over Socialist history. I wish more people would read him too. But they don't.

[Tainari88]

And what opinion is that? You never gave one! You said fake news and blamed the media. This thread is about an IMF report!!!

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEDIA!

I say in a world pandemic the solution to world peace is to throw B0ycey and Hindsite in a locked room together for months and see if they become buddies or if one of them murders the other one.

Lol. Hindsite thinks I am a liberal. No, Hiney, B0ycey is and a very good one.


Good luck educating the Hiney one. Hee hee.

[Crantag]

Sometimes I wish you had a blog Crantag. I really love your explanations.

You are right about Polayni. You are right about his Christian Socialism.

I like reading Michael Harrington going over Socialist history. I wish more people would read him too. But they don't.

Ah yes, right on cue the anthropologist chimes in. I seem to understand that Polayni probably had the most influence on that field.

I never read Polayni's later works, have always meant to read 'Livelihood of Man' in particular (his unfinished, posthumous publication).

I wasn't familiar with Michael Harrington. I believe I'll check him out.

I just started reading 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari, after @QatzelOk posted a link to it in some thread.

https://archive.org/details/HarariSapie ... 2/mode/1up

[Tainari88]

Ah yes, right on cue the anthropologist chimes in. I seem to understand that Polayni probably had the most influence on that field.

I never read Polayni's later works, have always meant to read 'Livelihood of Man' in particular (his unfinished, posthumous publication).

I wasn't familiar with Michael Harrington. I believe I'll check him out.

I just started reading 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari, after @QatzelOk posted a link to it in some thread.

https://archive.org/details/HarariSapie ... 2/mode/1up

He writes well and with a style that is compelling. If you don't know his background (Harari) is Israeli. Jewish. Gay. Liberal. Brilliant. Historian. Professor of history at the University of Jerusalem.

He has some great interviews. The Jewish intellectuals wanted him to emphasize the accomplishments of Jewish people throughout human history. He did not do that. They asked him why? And he said that (and I paraphrase) that if you start in with ego things like my group is superior and better and greater? It is a big error in human history. In that I agree with him.

If you study history as extensively as Yuval Harari has? You realize that almost all people have contributed something significant to the world. Especially groups that others have felt are outsiders and who were under pressure to conform in some way. It is very interesting.

[Rugoz]

I don't think I would characterise him that way. He rejects society dominated by market logic. This is informed by his detailed explicit, evidence-based rejection of the familiar mythology that market logic has dominated human society since time immemorial (this mythology is often represented on this site). By way of one illustration, he characterizes Adam Smith as describe a world which was emerging, but which did not yet exist (we might say that in Smith's time it was embryonic-- in the view of Polayni).

Labor and land may not always have been commoditized in the sense that society put a price tag on it. But there were always different valuations motivated by demand and supply.