Suchergebnisse

EPDF and EPUB available open access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. Money is central to capitalism and to our many sustainability crises. Could we remake money so as to advance sustainable economies and fair societies? A growing number of scholars, politicians and activists think we can, and they are doing it from the bottom up. This book examines how grassroots groups, municipalities and radical crypto-entrepreneurs are remaking money by designing and organising complementary currencies. It argues that in their novel ideas and governance practices lie the key for building green and inclusive economies. Engaging imaginatively with the future of money, this accessible book will appeal to anyone interested in constructing a more sustainable and just world.

AbstractRecent research suggests that the relation between money and the macroeconomy has sharply weakened in the U.S. after 1980. We reexamine this alleged breakdown by testing for cointegration between the macroeconomy and simple‐sum and Divisia monetary aggregates. We check the robustness of our results by modeling multiple key breakpoints around the early 1980s. Unlike the case of simple‐sum monetary aggregates, the evidence is overwhelming in its support for cointegration between Divisia money and macroeconomic variables, which persists despite several policy shifts and dramatic financial innovations in the post‐1980 period. These results support Divisia money over simple‐sum monetary aggregates as a guide in the implementation of monetary policy.

AbstractAlthough contemporary preconceptions about what money is or is not sometimes evoke doubt about the existence of money in ancient Mesopotamia, it seems clear that it did exist. Money was substance oriented, and coins, when they finally appear are weighed like any other valuable metal. The most common money substances were barley as cheap money and silver as the more expensive, but other substances were also used. As to the forms or shapes in which money circulated, a number of words in the ancient languages can be identified that probably refer to these forms, but their specific appearance remains, in most cases, unknown.

AbstractPart of the debate fueled by cryptocurrencies has revolved around the question of what we call money. This paper identifies two traditions in monetary theory that have tried to answer that question. On the one hand,the money or non-money viewfollows a strategy proposed by a version ofphilosophical essentialism, in which there is a set of defining characteristics of money that make it categorically different from other things used in transactions. On the other hand,the liquidity degree viewemphasizes that the multiple objects that circulate as a means of payment differ in their degree of acceptability. Since there is no absolute standard of liquidity, a precise dividing line between money and non-money cannot be drawn. We challengethe money or non-money view, arguing that there is nothing in the nature of money that can be interpreted as a natural kind essence by which money can be categorically separated from non-money.