Recap from part I – Macroeconomics Fundamentals

In the previous part, Macroeconomics Fundamentals, we have gone through the following topics:

  • The key differences between Orthodox and Heterodox macroeconomics.
  • The 3 sectors forming the macroeconomics environment: domestic public, domestic private and foreign.
  • The sectoral balances and the stock-flow consistency between them: one sector’s deficit corresponds to the surplus of the other.

Highlights of part II – Money and Money Things

In this part, Money and Money Things, we start with the evolution of Money from primitive society to contemporary era (traditional and modern money view). This leads to a review of the main differences between Orthodox and Heterodox macroeconomics.
The last section focuses on the difference between Money and Money Things along side the different currency regimes.

Evolution of Money

The origin of money according to the traditional view.

Money as a medium of exchange

The barter.
It all starts in a primitive society, essentially a subsistence society where individuals exchanges goods needed mainly for sustenance. In this society the only type of exchange is the barter since there is neither money nor unit of accounts.
With the advancement of the society the barter becomes increasingly inefficient.
One reason is the mismatching preferences of the operators, if an individual wants to exchange two sheep for a cow he needs to find, at the same time, someone who owns a cow and is willing to have sheep.
Another reason is the difficulty to operate barter between groups, mainly because the goods object of the exchange can be difficult to divide.
It becomes evident that the society ought to find an alternative, more efficient, way to run the raising market economy.

Gold and Goldsmiths.
The society increasingly find metals to be particularly suitable for their trading activities, especially one metal, gold. Gold becomes the preferred metal used as a medium of exchange: it was attractive, very valuable even in very small quantity and easily divisible.
People begin to make small pieces out of gold, the coins, and when the coinage activities grow in relevance the government steps in and starts producing the coins in a more convenient and efficient way.
Anyway, gold has a major problem related to its intrinsic value, it needs to be protected.
This protection function is taken over by the goldsmiths that step in as safe-keepers of the gold.

Banks and Government.
An individual possessing a given amount of gold and wanting to keep it safe can go to a goldsmith and make a deposit. The goldsmith issues a receipt as proof of the gold deposit.
Goldsmiths soon realises that the likelihood that all the depositors should turn to them and retire all their gold deposits on the same day was very low. They then start to issue more receipts than held gold deposits and these receipts become a new medium of exchange.
Goldsmiths develops into financial actors, banks are born.
The primary function of the newly born banks is in fact the multiplication of the amount of medium of exchanges (or money).
The government comes in, again with a support role, as a lender of last resort to stabilise the system.

The origin of money according to the Modern Money view

Money as a social unit of account

The groups.
It starts in a primitive society with no unit of accounts and no money and the barter is the only type of exchange.

With the advancement of the society people started to organise and live in groups. The survival of a group depended primarily on people contributions. Each member of the group had to fulfil certain duties, like food production (harvesting), defence (military service) or building/maintenance activities.
These contributions were made in kind since there was no unit of account and no liquidity. The tasks were usually assigned at fixed time; for example, the group leader decided that each January, every man was required to help reinforcing the village wall.

There were however situation when the duties were required before the scheduled time. If, for instance, the nearby village started to get too aggressive then the group leader would require the construction of a new village wall in September instead of January.

When contributions are made ahead of time the leader of the group gave out tokens. People who fulfilled a duty on center’s demand received a token. The token could be given back to the center and it would grant an exemption from that duty.
Alternatively, the token can be passed through other members of the group in exchange of goods.
The tokens issued by the center is a unit of account that everyone recognises (1 token = 1 duty)
The tokens create liquidity (exchange for goods).
Before the tokens come back to the center they are used to convey value between people (medium of exchange)
The center issues tokens by spending and retires them by taxing.
Money is created!

Key features of the two views

Traditional vs Modern Money view

The table above summarises in 4 points the key features of the Modern Money view in comparison of the traditional view.

According to the traditional view (mainstream or orthodox view) money is a natural invention of the private society and arises to facilitate the exchanges of private actors. Since money is created from gold, it is essentially a commodity and successively, when the metal was replaced by bank notes, a convention.
The government plays a minor role in the money creation process, it is there only for technical support (coinage, lending of last resort).

According to the Modern Money view (heterodox), money is not something created by private people seeking an efficient way for their exchange. Money is a constitutional project initiated by the centre of the the group, it is a legal institution used to record debits and credits.
In this process the government has a primary since it issues the money and creates a demand for it through taxation.

It is important to mention the fact that the Modern Money view is supported by historical and anthropological evidence while there is no evidence supporting the traditional barter and efficiency view.

For the past 4000 years, at least, we have had Modern Money.
(J. M. Keynes, “A Treatise on Money ”, 1930)

Why is money accepted?

Definition of Money ⇒ Government IOUs denominated in the national currency.

Why does the private sector accept the currency issued by the government?
The government currency is accepted because it can be used in exchange for something…

What backs up modern money (sovereign money) then?

  • Reserves of metal: in a gold standard regime the money issued by governments is pegged to the value of gold reserves; money is accepted because it can be exchanged, at a fix rate, for gold.
  • Reserves of foreign currencies: similar to the gold standard regime, with the difference that the pegging is based on a foreign currency instead of the metal.
  • Nothing (Fiat)
    • Legal tender laws: money acceptance is imposed by law.
    • Tax liabilities: money is accepted because it can be used in tax payments.

The history of the evolution of money according to the modern money view gives us the correct answer: modern money is fiat, it is accepted because it can be used to clear tax liabilities.

Taxes drive money!

Today most of the developed economies uses fiat currencies, take for instance USA, Sweden, and United Kingdom, but there were and still are many situations where the nature of money has been altered.

Before the end of the Bretton Woods system, developed economies were living under a gold standard and today there are still governments that opted to peg their national currency to a foreign currency, or even more extreme to adopt a foreign currency as domestic social unit of account.

In the remaining of part II and part III we will explore in more details the fundamental relation between money and taxation.

Money Theories and Regimes

Chartal Money

The modern definition of money that we will be using from now on is Chartal money, or Fiat.

Fiat currency: a currency issued by the government, with no intrinsic value, unpegged and non-convertible.

In the Chartalist approach money has no intrinsic value (in contrast to Metalism), it is accepted because it can be used in tax payments.

Money is a creature of the State.

The Central Government has a central role in the creation of Chartal money: it imposes a liability denominated in a social unit of account and then issues a money that will be accepted in payment.

The Central Government has a central role in the creation of Chartal money:

  1. It chooses a Money of Account
  2. It imposes a tax liability (in the same account)
  3. It issues a currency that becomes the social unit of account
  4. The currency is the government’s liability (IOU)
  5. The government accepts the currency for tax payments
  6. Domestic stocks and flows are denominated in the national currency

It is irrelevant what the currency in question is made of, be it stone, paper, gold or a byte.

Chartalism and its influences

Georg Friedrich Knapp, in his book “The State Theory of Money” (1924), introduced the definition of Chartalism as opposition to Metalism and unveiled the mechanism for understanding modern money.

His studies have influenced the works of some of the most important contemporary economists, here I list some example:

  • Alfred Mitchell-Innes: “Credit Theory of Money” (1914), integration State Theory of Money and Credit Theory of Money
  • Johan M. Keynes: “A Treatise on Money” (1930), money and money-of-account
  • Hyman Minsky: “Stabilizing an Unstable Economy” (1986), Endogeneity of money
  • Abba Lerner: “Money as a Creature of the State” (1947), Functional Finance
  • Geoffrey Ingham: “The Nature of Money” (2004), Credit Money and capitalism development
  • Charles Goodhart: “Two concepts of money: implications for the analysis of optimal currency areas” (1998), One nation one currency.

Money and money things

People often make some confusion in considering the money created from the central government and the money created by private financial institutions (bank money) as the same thing.

Government money and bank money are not really alike, the former is money and the latter is money things:

Money → IOUs issued by the Central Government
Money Things → IOUs issued by the Non-Government sector

The figure below represents a simple pyramid of liabilities divided in 3 layers. The acceptability of the liabilities issued by each level decreases as we move downward. IOUs issued by the private sector are less accepted than the ones issued by banks that are in turn less accepted than government IOUs.

Moreover, each level leverages the liabilities issued by the higher level that is why we have more private and bank liabilities in circulation than the government’s ones.

Pyramid of liabilities
  • Government IOUs are not convertible (fiat money).
  • Private IOUs are convertible to government IOUs.
  • Leveraging → small amount of government IOUs (Money) generates a wide range of Private IOUs (Money Things).
  • Central Bank is the Lender of Last Resort.

Government IOUs are not convertible (fiat money).

Cash and reserves balance are the government IOUs, money, and, in a fiat system, they are not convertible. If you hold a 100kr you cannot go to the Swedish central bank and convert it to gold or to US dollars, same for Dollars or Pounds. The only usage you can make out of your 100kr note is to use it to buy goods and services, pay taxes or deposit it.

Mind that when I say convertible, I mean convertibility at fixed exchange rate.

Private IOUs are convertible to government IOUs.

Bank money are private financial IOUs, money things, and contrary to government’s IOUs, they are convertible to money.

If you have a deposit account at your bank with 1000kr on it, you hold 1000kr of money thing (the bank account is bank money); you don’t hold any cash you just have a positive number on your account. If you go to an ATM and withdraw 500kr, you just converted 500 money things into money (in this case was cash). The private bank liability is converted to government’s liability.
There is an important intermediate step that will be extensively covered in part IV, when you take out cash from your account (or you make a bank transfer as we will see later), the bank must have enough reserves in order to convert the number 500 into real 500kr.
Without those reserves you wouldn’t be able to receive your cash, in this case the central bank steps in as a lender of last resort and lend the needed reserves to your bank.

If we move to the bottom level of the pyramid, the private non-financial level, we can see an example of conversion from private non-financial IOUs to bank money (private non-financial).
You go to a car dealer to buy a car. You pay 10% of the price in cash and the remaining 90% is due in 60 days.
You just issued a private liability, or IOU. You got your car and paid 10% in cash and 90% in liability.
After 59 days you make a bank transfer from your checking account (a money thing) to the car seller’s account. What you did is a conversion, by converting your debt to the seller with a debt to the bank.
The private non-financial layer is now cleared, you have settled your debt using both money (the 10% cash) and money thing (the bank transfer, i.e. bank money).

Monetary regimes

Pegged exchange rate:
A country promises to redeem its currency for a commodity (usually gold) or another currency at a fixed exchange rate.

Managed exchange rate:
A country promises to redeem its currency at a floating exchange rate which is contained in a fixed exchange rate band.

Floating rate:
A country does not promise to redeem its currency at a fixed exchange rate.

Monetary regimes and policy space

The adoption of a certain monetary regime has crucial effect on the domestic policy space of a country.


Floating rate:

  • Most policy space
  • No default risk on its own currency
  • Unlimited spending possibility
  • Inflation and depreciation arbitrary

Managed float:

  • Less policy space
  • Spending can affect exchange rate

Pegged exchange rate:

  • Least policy space
  • Spending constrained by exchange rate
  • Default risk greater than 0.

Countries and monetary regimes

Down below I included a small list of countries grouped by their monetary regime, it is only an example but if you would like to see a full list of countries by exchange rate regime you can check this link.


* The Euro as a whole is a fiat currency system but each single Euro-country is subjected to a foreign currency regime, i.e. the most rigid form of pegging.

References for part II:

Desan, C., Making Money: Coin, Currency, and the Coming of Capitalism, Oxford University Press

Godley, W. and Lavoie, M. (2007) Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Godley, W., 1996, Money, Finance and National Income Determination: An Integrated
Approach. Levy Economics Institute, Working Paper 167, June,

Goodhart, C.A.E., 1989. Money, Information and Uncertainty Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Knapp, Georg Friedrich. (1924) 1973. The State Theory Of Money. Clifon: Augustus M.

Ingham, G., 2000. Babylonian Madness: On the Historical and Sociological Origins of
Money. In John Smithin (ed.) What Is Money. London & New York: Routledge.

—, 2004a) “The Nature of Money,” Economic Sociology: European electronic newsletter,
Vol 5 (2), January 2004, pp. 18-28.

—, 2004b. The Nature of Money, Cambridge: Polity

Innes, A.M. (1913) What is Money? Banking Law Journal30(5): 377-408. Reprinted in
Wray, L. R. (ed.) Credit and State Theories of Money. Northampton: Edward Elgar. 2004.

Lerner A., 1947. Money as a Creature of the State, American Economic Review, 37(2), May, pp.312–17.

—.(1914) The Credit Theory of Money. Banking Law Journal31(2): 151–168. Reprinted in Wray, L. R. (ed.) Credit and State Theories of Money, 50-78. Northampton: Edward Elgar. 2004.

—, 1998. Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability. Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar.

—, 1990. Money and Credit in Capitalistic Economies: The Endogenous Money Approach. Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, VT, USA: Edward Elgar.

—. (2002) A Monetary Theory of Public Finance. International Journal of Political Economy 32 (3): 80-97.