Longing for Haute Finance in the 21st Century? A Neo-Polanyian Approach to the Theory of Money in the Digital Age

This article examines the Libra project, which was announced by Facebook in 2019 as an important turning point in the development of digital currency since Bitcoin. Libra is a kind of stablecoin, and it has been identified as a global stablecoin owing to its wide-ranging impact on the dimension of global finance. Because the Libra project aims to offer a globally accessible low-cost payment system for all users, we analyse it in the research area of global finance with a qualitative approach to the history of economic theories of money and finance. In this area, Karl Polanyi’s thoughts on money and finance and the interpretation by Saiag, which he called a neo-Polanyian approach, deserve attention. Taking this approach, we understand that unofficial functions of haute finance played a significant role in sustaining the international and interdependent financial system in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In this context, although it also saved colonized and dependent regions from falling into financial crises, it was not socially helpful for them. If Libra wants to be the haute finance of our age in the real sense of serving to bring about financial inclusion, such a point should be considered. However, for the moment, existing international monetary institutions are only keen to take regulatory measures against the risk of dirty transactions. There is a substantial lacuna of publicness in the discussion, and this needs to be filled in in the near future.

THE TIME-SPACES OF CAPITALISM: SUZANNE DE BRUNHOFF AND MONETARY THOUGHT AFTER MARX

The paper is dedicated to Suzanne de Brunhoff’s monetary thought and shows how her analysis of very concrete monetary and financial problems of her time led her to develop the most innovative contributions to Marxist theory of money since classical Marxism. Concepts such as non-contemporaneity of capitalism with itself, pseudo-social validation, conflict centralization, or State management of money and labor power reflect her profound analysis of the ways capitalism generates very particular relations to space and time. By looking at this spatio-temporal dimension of de Brunhoff’s concepts, this paper aims to reveal the novelty, power, and fruitfulness of her monetary analysis. The first part of the paper seeks to define the meaning of the concept of general equivalent, drawing on her reading of Karl Marx’s Capital, before situating her approach in relation to institutionalist theories of money. The second part considers de Brunhoff’s analysis of the particular time-spaces of capitalism.

The theory of money value and monetary evolution for Simmel and Mises

The essay starts positioning Simmel as a bridge between the money value theories of Menger and Mises, and claiming that his contribution is important in its own right; notably, his idea that money evolves towards more abstract forms as society becomes more complex. It states that this trend exists and that its course has not yet been completed. After that, the theories of money value of Menger, Mises and Simmel are succinctly described, with emphasis on the contributions to Mises’ theory of money value that can be traced back to Simmel. About Simmel’s theory of money value, it is argued that Simmel went one step further than Menger in stating that value is not only subjective but also inter-subjective; such a move is understood as a necessary step in his argument that there is a trend towards more abstract forms of money as society evolves. Key words: Value Theory, Austrian School, Definition of Money, Payment Systems. JEL Classification: B10, B13, E40, E42. Resumen: Este trabajo empieza planteando que Simmel es un puente de unión entre las teorías de valor del dinero de Menger y Mises, y que su contribución es importante por sí misma. En este sentido, destaca su idea de que el dinero se vuelve más abstracto con el desarrollo de la sociedad. Posteriormente, describe sucintamente las teorías del valor del dinero de Menger, Mises y Simmel, poniendo énfasis en las contribuciones de Simmel acerca de la teoría de valor del dinero de Mises. Respecto a la teoría del valor del dinero de Simmel, se plantea que supuso un paso adelante en relación a Menger, al afirmar que el valor del dinero no es solamente subjetivo sino ínter-subjetivo. Esta afirmación es un paso necesario en su argumento de que existe una tendencia hacia formas más abstractas de dinero conforme la sociedad se torna más compleja. Palabras clave: Teoría del valor, Escuela Austriaca, definición de dinero, sistema de pagos. Clasificación JEL: B10, B13, E40, E42.

Money as an Institution and Money as an Object

The folk conception of money as an object is not a promising starting point to develop general, explanatory metaphysical accounts of the social world. A theory of institutions as rules in equilibrium is more consistent with scientific theories of money, is able to shed light on the folk view, and side-steps some unnecessary puzzles.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND FOR REFORM THE MONETARY SYSTEM OF UKRAINE

Introduction. Reforming the monetary system of Ukraine is necessary in order to bring it to a state that would meet the needs of socio-economic development of the country.Problem. Monetary reform in Ukraine can be carried out by trial and error, as was the case, for example, in the first half of the 1990s, and can be much more productive, based on the relevant theoretical principles.Purpose: highlighting those provisions of the basic theories of money, which in the current conditions can form a theoretical basis for monetary reform in Ukraine in its broadest sense, in terms of creating a fundamentally new structure and content of the monetary system.The presentation of the material of the article. When reforming the monetary system of Ukraine, it is necessary to focus on practically oriented provisions of basic theories of money. Within the framework of abstract theories, the following provisions can serve these purposes: metalistic theory - to displace the worst money with the best, to achieve a positive foreign trade balance, to pursue a policy of protectionism and exchange rate stabilization; commodity theory - on balancing the amount of money and commodity mass, the application of the gold coin standard, ensuring the independence of the central bank and changing the discount of securities depending on the needs of the economy; nominalist, in particular state, theory - on the maintenance of the state value of paper money. In the framework of applied theories of money, which are based on quantitative theory, the relationship between the mass of money and GNP is of practical importance. The classical quantitative theory of money is based on a direct relationship between them, the theory of neoclassical money (transactional, conjunctural and Cambridge) - indirect.Results and its discussion. It is shown that the Caesian theory of money is important for stimulating economic growth in Ukraine, and monetary theory, coordinated among themselves on the basis of neoclassical synthesis, is important for curbing inflation.Conclusions. Practically oriented provisions of abstract and applied theories of money can form the theoretical basis of monetary reform in Ukraine, but their use should be based on modern Ukrainian realities.Keywords: monetary system, monetary reform, money theory, commodity mass, money supply, price.

THE TIME-SPACES OF CAPITALISM: SUZANNE DE BRUNHOFF AND MONETARY THOUGHT AFTER MARX

The paper is dedicated to Suzanne de Brunhoff’s monetary thought and shows how her analysis of very concrete monetary and financial problems of her time led her to develop the most innovative contributions to Marxist theory of money since classical Marxism. Concepts such as noncontemporaneity of capitalism with itself, pseudo-social validation, conflict centralization or State management of money and labor power reflect her profound analysis of the ways capitalism generates very particular relationships to space and time. It is by looking at this spatio-temporal dimension of Brunhoff’s concepts that this paper aims to reveal the novelty, power and fruitfulness of her monetary analysis. The first part of the paper seeks to define the meaning of the notion of general equivalent extracting from her reading of Marx's Capital, before situating her approach in relation to Institutionalist theories of money. The second turns to Brunhoff’s analysis of the particular time-spaces of capitalism.

An unusual sociologist Geoffrey Ingham, and two unknown famous economists (On the book “Money. Ideology, history, politics” by G. Ingham)

The article deals with the episodes in the three-century confrontation between the account-debt institutional and the commodity theory of money. The former is rarely discussed; and the ideas of G. Ingham can be considered as a such modern episode. The commodity theory of money continues to dominate in university textbooks. The article analyzes the fate of two books by J. M. Keynes and J. Schumpeter as an example. It shows the connection of the two theories of money with two opposite methodological approaches, namely, a priori-abstract, based on assumptions, and historical-experimental, based on facts. The first of these was clearly identified by J. S. Mill at the beginning of the institutionalization of the academic/university economist profession and continues to dominate this profession to this day. The second was developed in the German historico-ethical school headed by G. Schmoller and in the community of American original institutionalism, the most consistent representatives of which were J. Commons and his students.

On the necessity of money in an exchange-constituted economy: the cases of Smith and Marx

The debate over theories of the nature of money has recently been revisited in this Journal. This paper shifts the focus from the stuff that is being positioned as money to the social totality. Credit theorists claim that commodity theories of money imply monetary neutrality and a primacy of real analysis. In contrast, this paper argues based on Marx and Smith that, independently of whether money is a commodity or credit, the necessity of money depends on the constitution of the economy in terms of the relation between production and circulation. If social production is constituted through the exchange between private specialised producers, money is not neutral but essential. For Smith, real analysis is nevertheless meaningful, in that, he treats the spheres of exchange and production separately. By contrast, Marx exposes real analysis as commodity fetishism and stresses the mutually constitutive social relations between money, commodity exchange and capitalist production.