me: >> economists typically don't use that definition [of money as "legal tender >> for all debts public and private."]
Shane: > Because "typical" economists, having no understanding of money (nor of > anything else of economic importance) regard money as merely a "veil" > behind which, as Say's law holds, is the "real" (ie., barter) economy. I didn't say anything about "typical." One economist of note, for example, saw money not as "legal tender," but as "the universal equivalent." He didn't see money as legal tender, but (as seemed reasonable at the time) as basically golden (i.e., commodity money). In any event, the standard definition of money among economists (but outside of the Chicago school and their ilk) is that money isn't a "veil" (a mere means of payment and unit of account) but also a store of value (a kind of wealth). Under this definition can be fiat money (legal tender), commodity money, or debt-backed money. By the way, according to my informal survey of the field, hardly any macroeconomists (outside of the Chicago school and their ilk) believe in Say's Law. They may be poor Keynesians (like Mankiw), but they don't deny the possibility of a "general glut." They just believe in such crap as Pigou (real-balance) effects that allow the economy to automatically recover as prices and wages fall. The big sin of macro these days isn't Say's Law as much as "dynamic stochastic general equilibrium theory" (i.e., the building of mathematical sandcastles in the air). -- 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
