Replying to Avatar Tony

Explanation of money according to the Commodity theory of money vs the Credit theory of money:

Carl Menger:

“Money is not an invention of the state. It is not the product of a legislative act. Even the sanction of political authority is not necessary for its existence. Certain commodities came to be money quite naturally, as the result of economic relationships that were independent of the power of the state.”

Alfred Mitchell-Innes:

“Shortly, the Credit Theory is this: that a sale and purchase is the exchange of a commodity for credit. From this main theory springs the sub-theory that the value of credit or money does not depend on the value of any metal or metals, but on the right which the creditor acquires to “payment,” that is to say, to satisfaction for the credit, and on the obligation of the debtor to “pay” his debt and conversely on the right of the debtor to release himself from his debt by the tender of an equivalent debt owed by the creditor, and the obligation of the creditor to accept this tender in satisfaction of his credit.

Such is the fundamental theory, but in practice it is not necessary for a debtor to acquire credits on the same persons to whom he is debtor. We are all both buyers and sellers, so that we are all at the same time both debtors and creditors of each other, and by the wonderfully efficient machinery of the banks to which we sell our credits, and which thus become the clearing houses of commerce, the debts and credits of the whole community are centralized and set off against each other. In practice, therefore, any good credit will pay any debt.”

So reminiscent of #Bitcoin and Ethereum🤡

Thanks for this! Help me out, I’m trying to learn here. These two quotes don’t seem opposed to me. The first describes the marginal theory of value, the second describes how an economy that allows for credit tends to centralize.

The second quote is for sure what happened to ethereum. But I’m reading from this that any credit, even a loan secured with bitcoin, would eventually lead to centralization. So are we saying only payments, no lending or borrowing?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

My take here is that commodity money theory is simple and robust. It doesn’t require constant tinkering and rulers to facilitate trade. Bitcoin absorbed this philosophy imo.

Credit money theory on the other hand is an obvious inspiration on Eth heads.

In regards to your question about lending and borrowing, I won’t be able to explain this better thank nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a did in nostr:npub1r8l06leee9kjlam0slmky7h8j9zme9ca32erypgqtyu6t2gnhshs3jx5dk ‘s podcast: https://stephanlivera.com/episode/518/

Oh I see, they are quite different that way. Thanks for the link - you’ve genuinely piqued my interest on this question, and I’m sure Lyn will help me understand.