economists typically don't use that definition. On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Shane Mage <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Jim Devine wrote: > >> While makes a lot of sense in most cases, how does this deal with pure >> fiat money, i.e., money that's based on the power of the state to >> restrict its supply (and to make an artificial demand, as with >> requiring that people pay taxes using the fiat money)? What about pure >> commodity money, where something is used as money simply because it's >> standardized and scarce? Maybe the author needs to define what he >> means by "money"? > > Why should he have to do that? *The* definition of money is stated on > the front of > every Federal Reserve Note: "legal tender for all debts public and > private." > > > > > Shane Mage > > "All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things, > as goods are for gold and gold for goods." > > Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90 > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
-- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
