Geld gehört zu den mysteriösesten kulturellen Erfindungen überhaupt. Es ist nicht nur ein Tauschmittel, es dient auch der präzisen Verteilung von Macht in Geldwirtschaften, während sich dies in traditionellen Gesellschaften durch Gewalt und Blutvergießen vollzieht. Geld lockert zwischenmenschliche Beziehungen, erweitert aber gleichzeitig den Freiheitsspielraum jedes Einzelnen. Geld ist nicht an ein besonderes Gut wie Gold oder Silber gebunden und kann auch in der sublimen Form des Kreditgelds auf elektronischen Konten existieren. Es lässt sich am besten als eine Art institutionalisiertes Vertrauen begreifen, dessen Gültigkeit ständig durch eine Art permanentes Plebiszit bestätigt werden muss, durch das tagtägliche Handeln der Menschen, die Geld benutzen. (ICEÜbers)
In this article in the symposium on Costa Lapavitsas Social Foundation of Money, Market, & Credit, the author asserts that money does matter in capitalist society, & frames the thematic question of how money in capitalism differs from non-capitalist money. The development of fiat money in the form of derivatives is explored as a means for trading risk or hedging. Analysis of the social relations mediated by money explores the Marxist limitation of a theory of power & trust, & Lapavitsas reconciliation of that limitation by theorizing the dominance of fiat money. A shift to the global level is argued to distinguish the differences between gold & fiat money, & the resultant break between money & capital, & supports the conclusion that derivatives are distinctly capitalist money that embody the process of competition & accumulation. References.
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.
Conservative welfare state policies as in Germany often presume that money is a common resource within couples and, therefore, pooled. Research, however, indicates that money is increasingly managed separately or partly separately. This trend is either explained by the diversification of forms of relationships or interpreted as a general decline of the joint pooling of money. Contributing to this debate, this study investigates whether couples abandon independent money management when particular life events occur or when partners' resources change. Data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for the years 2004, 2005 and 2008 are used. Panel analyses show that marriage leads to joint pooling or partly independent money management. An increase in women's incomes, however, is associated with independent money management. Women's wish for independence apparently contributes to the decline of the joint pool. The substantial prevalence of financial independence within couples calls into doubt the adequacy of German welfare state policies.
ABSTRACT In the nineteenth century, money appear primarily as gold. In the twenty-first century, it appears as strictly fiduciary money. It is known that Marx said very clearly that the golden money was the effective basis of the monetary and credit system. Had the historical development finally shown that his theory of value and money would be false? Marxists have struggled continually with this problem. This paper tries to show that exist a simple and good answer to this crucial question. It comes just developing a little the dialectics of commodities and money found on Marx's Capital.