tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8912769355087947000..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Marx on the Necessity of Money being a Commodity Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-68448607654770414572015-06-10T03:27:36.246-07:002015-06-10T03:27:36.246-07:00What monetary functions does gold have today? The ...What monetary functions does gold have today? The gold standard is long dead. It is true that central banks have gold as one asset, but they carry lots of other assets too (foreign currencies, etc.), and no money is convertible into gold at a fixed rate.<br /><br />Gold is mainly a speculative asset, and has some industrial uses but above all uses for consumer goods like jewellery etc.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-18739292416711336692015-06-09T13:24:19.428-07:002015-06-09T13:24:19.428-07:00Of interest:
http://www.researchonmoneyandfinanc...Of interest: <br /><br />http://www.researchonmoneyandfinance.org/index.php/publication/discussion-papers/60-the-theory-and-empirical-credibility-of-commodity-money-john-weeksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-21023555663648010982015-06-09T12:50:50.827-07:002015-06-09T12:50:50.827-07:00Maybe gold still plays an important role in the ec...Maybe gold still plays an important role in the economy. Still it has certain monetary functions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41908961608162626292015-06-09T06:18:26.492-07:002015-06-09T06:18:26.492-07:00I know I tend to be highly critical, but I assure ...I know I tend to be highly critical, but I assure you it does not come from a place of malice, and I am all too happy to give credit where credit is due — this is a pretty good post.<br /><br /><i>Attempts to claim that fiat money can properly function as money within Marx’s economic system as Marx understood money are utterly wrong. If Marxists are going to do this, they must admit that they need to radically revise Marx’s economic system and that Marx was wrong about money in important respects.</i><br /><br />It seems so. I said I generally withhold judgment on this topic (since it's orthogonal to my research interests), but if pushed I suppose I'd agree with this sentiment. As I've mentioned, there are many theorists who have attempted to make just such revisions, but I'd probably come down more on the side of those who distinguish the origins, roles and behaviors of commodity money from those of non-commodity money.<br /><br />Also, @ Anon: <br /><br /><i>Funny thing is that Marx was considered an innovative thinker. Actually, he just rehashed the "classic" arguments.</i><br /><br />Yes and no. "Yes" in the sense that he was firmly seated in that tradition of economic thought; "no" in the respect that it wasn't so much a rehash as a reorientation, built out of a rejection and critique of the theoretical conclusions of other classicals.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-80173034049836217752015-06-09T04:17:11.979-07:002015-06-09T04:17:11.979-07:00Funny thing is that Marx was considered an innovat...Funny thing is that Marx was considered an innovative thinker. Actually, he just rehashed the "classic" arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com