Seems to be a lot of discussion of David Graeber's ideas about money, which may be similar to Geoffrey Ingham's. From the latter's "The Nature of Money":
"All money is constituted by credit-debt relations--that is social relations. First...the holder of money is owed goods; money is a claim on the social product. Second...money is a credit for the user because it is debt (liability) for the issuer (issuers promise to accept back that their own money in payment of a debt. Thus the holder of money is both owed goods and has the means of discharging any debt contracted in money of account that exists to be discharged in that money space. Money cannot be created without the simultaneous creation of debt. For money to be money presupposes the existence of debt measured in the money of account elsewhere in the social system and in the debt created by the issuer's promise to accept back its money in settlement. IN other words, the money debt is assignable--or transferrable, or negotiable. Whilst all money is credit, it is not true to say that all credit is money." I would appreciate any help understanding this paragraph on p. 72
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
