tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8434216916695413982..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: The Majority View in Modern Scholarship on the Origin of Electrum Coinage: An UpdateLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57571893305592189762017-09-05T12:10:57.144-07:002017-09-05T12:10:57.144-07:00"There can be no doubt that, in more recent h..."There can be no doubt that, in more recent history, the responsibility for creating new money (and the seigniorage benefit which goes with it) has moved from the state to the private sector." "Seigniorage" is strictly speaking a monopoly rent. Consequently to the extent that private substitutes for government money (e.g. transferable bank deposits) are competitively supplied, there employment mainly involves, not a "move" of seigniorage from the public to the private sector, but a transformation of producers surplus into consumers' surplus. To pine for more government control is to neglect this crucial point. What's at stake is not a simple choice between alternative exploitative monopolies (and all monopolies tend to exploit) but one between a monopoly provider and competitive ones. Private monopoly is of course also an alternative; but it isn't one many if any economists favor. George Selginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03106618641653835537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-39166233258575255582017-09-05T12:03:07.148-07:002017-09-05T12:03:07.148-07:00"Natural electrum was peculiarly unsuited to ..."Natural electrum was peculiarly unsuited to be the most saleable commodity that emerged as the general money commodity in line with Menger’s theory of the origin of money." This seems to me disingenuous, LK. Menger's theory does indeed refer to selection among non-monetary commodities; but it hardly excludes the refinement of such commodities, e.g. of precious metals, for the specific purpose of exchange.Here you simply take advantage of the labeling of the "private origins" story as "Mengerian" to effect a criticism that isn't relevant at all. Banknotes didn't grow on trees; yet does that fact contradict the "Mengerian" theory that they were first employed by private goldsmiths? Evidently Menger's theory of how money evolves from commodities is not the whole story of money's evolution: coinage is a distinct chapter of that story, and one that Menger's own theory strictly understood is only indirectly relevant. George Selginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03106618641653835537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62447397142812028872017-09-04T13:41:39.076-07:002017-09-04T13:41:39.076-07:00A thoroughly researched and clearly presented arti...A thoroughly researched and clearly presented article.<br /><br />There can be no doubt that, in more recent history, the responsibility for creating new money (and the seigniorage benefit which goes with it) has moved from the state to the private sector.<br /><br />Huber and Robertson have explored the benefits associated with bringing this function back to the state, in their book called 'Creating New Money'.<br /><br />I wonder about the arguments that were presented to enable the move to private bank created money during the earlier 20th century. What possessed our forebears to allow it? Paraphrasing Hasil Adkins, what the hell were they thinking?<br /><br />Any ideas??<br /><br />.jingelichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09998585247772423235noreply@blogger.com