Would You Barter with God? Why Holy Debts and Not Profane Markets Created Money

Semenova, Alla

doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00779.x

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Después, para que se aceptase la desigual estructura social construida, las viejas formas de relaciones tenían que parecer intactas. De ahí que los rituales de ofrenda de sacrificios a deidades llevados a cabo en las teocracias de la Antigüedad escenificaran esta ficción igualitaria haciendo partícipes de los mismos a todos los miembros de la comunidad, siempre en función de su lugar en la escala social (Semenova, 2011).…”

Section: Superar La Doble Coincidencia De Deseos: Trueque Individual unclassified

Reflections on modern money: the emergence of chartalism

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En el trabajo confrontamos las bases de la economía monetaria metalista con los fundamentos monetarios institucionalistas del cartalismo. Inicialmente, intentamos desenmascarar la errónea concepción del dinero que impregna aun hoy las doctrinas económicas y políticas en las sociedades contemporáneas, para proponer, en su lugar, una nueva concepción del dinero más ajustada a la realidad y a la evidencia histórica, donde éste actúa como mecanismo impulsor para el desarrollo de las variables reales. En este marco, resaltamos especialmente la naturaleza del dinero-crédito moderno como una unidad de cuenta cuya transferibilidad incorpora al Estado como deudor. Concluimos que una concepción moderna del dinero concede a la autoridad monetaria herramientas de política económica útiles y concretas para afrontar los problemas del pleno empleo y de la estabilidad de precios que sacuden a las sociedades actuales.

show abstract

Section: Superar La Doble Coincidencia De Deseos: Trueque Individual unclassified

Reflections on modern money: the emergence of chartalism

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the institution of trade, both foreign and domestic, played a marginal role in ancient Greek and Lydian societies, it would be unlikely that the ox-unit developed in a market context (Laum 1924; for the marginality of trade see also Kurke 1999;von Reden 2003;Seaford 2004;Semenova 2011aSemenova , 2011bPeacock 2013). Rather than market exchange, ancient Greek and Lydian economies exhibited "the centrality of reciprocity and redistribution as principles of allocation" (Seaford 2004, 27).…”

Section: The Rise Of Money and Class Society: The Case Of Ancient Grementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this manner, the sacrificial repast reflected the principle of proportionate rather than absolute equality (see Semenova 2011aSemenova , 2011b. Proportionate equality "gives to the greater more and to the inferior less and in proportion to the nature of each" (Plato Laws 757, in Spengler 1980, 88-89).…”

Section: The Rise Of Money and Class Society: The Case Of Ancient Grementioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 To service the ritual, sacrificial offerings were made, mostly in oxen, whereby religious officials stipulated the precise quality, type and quantity of cattle to be contributed, thereby establishing the first standardized unit of account guaranteed by the authorities (Laum 1924;Desmonde 1962;Seaford 2004;Semenova 2011aSemenova , 2011bPeacock 2013). …”

Section: The Rise Of Money and Class Society: The Case Of Ancient Grementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Rise of Money and Class Society: The Contributions of John F. Henry

Semenova

Wray

2015

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThis paper explores the rise of money and class society in ancient Greece, drawing historical and theoretical parallels to the case of ancient Egypt. In doing so, the paper examines the historical applicability of the chartalist and metallist theories of money. It will be shown that the origins and the evolution of money were closely intertwined with the rise and consolidation of class society and inequality. Money, class society, and inequality came into being simultaneously, so it seems, mutually reinforcing the development of one another. Rather than a medium of exchange in commerce, money emerged as an "egalitarian token" at the time when the substance of social relations was undergoing a fundamental transformation from egalitarian to class societies. In this context, money served to preserve the façade of social and economic harmony and equality, while inequality was growing and solidifying. Rather than "invented" by private traders, money was first issued by ancient Greek states and proto-states as they aimed to establish and consolidate their political and economic power. Rather than a medium of exchange in commerce, money first served as a "means of recompense" administered by the Greek citystates as they strived to implement the civic conception of social justice. While the origins of money are to be found in the origins of inequality, a well-functioning democratic society has the power to subvert the inequality-inducing characteristic of money via the use of money for public purpose, following the principles of Modern Money Theory (MMT). When used according to the principles of MMT, the inequality-inducing characteristic of money could be undermined, while the current trends in rising income and wealth disparities could be contained and reversed.

show abstract

“… 4 Credit has historically played an important role in the development of monetary exchange (Graeber, 2011; Semenova, 2011). Indeed, modern monetary economists are aware that the double-coincidence problem is not sufficient for finding a role for money.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we call money? An appraisal of the money or non-money view

Frasser

Guzmán²

2019

Journal of Institutional Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Part 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 view follows a strategy proposed by a version of philosophical 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 view emphasizes 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 challenge the 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.

show abstract

Would You Barter with God? Why Holy Debts and Not Profane Markets Created Money

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

Reflections on modern money: the emergence of chartalism

Reflections on modern money: the emergence of chartalism

The Rise of Money and Class Society: The Contributions of John F. Henry

What do we call money? An appraisal of the money or non-money view

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About