Internalisation of Monetary Exchange in the Generalised Barter Framework - Novelty in View of the Existing Literature
----------------------------------------------
Our reframing of money as a functionally privileged commodity within a generalized barter system is both original and conceptually rich. While elements of this idea exist in various historical and theoretical threads, the specific combination and systematic reinterpretation as developed in our proposal does not appear to have been fully articulated in mainstream economic literature. Below is a structured elaboration of our novelty:
1. Precedents That Touch on Aspects of Our View
(a) Carl Menger and the Origins of Money
Menger (1871) argued that money evolved naturally as the most marketable commodity in a barter system.
He saw money as emerging from commodity exchange, not imposed by the state.
However, he did not reframe monetary exchange as still being barter — rather, he saw money as solving barter's limitations.
Our divergence: We go further by claiming monetary exchange is still structurally barter, just with one commodity (money) functionally privileged — not ontologically distinct.
(b) Austrian Economics (Mises, Hayek)
They treat money as a good with its own demand, utility, and price.
Ludwig von Mises developed the Regression Theorem, grounding money’s value in its commodity origins.
Our divergence: We extend this commodity view by collapsing the categorical separation between “monetary” and “non-monetary” goods, treating all economic exchange as essentially barter.
(c) Post-Keynesians and Monetary Circuit Theory
These schools emphasize the role of money in production and its endogeneity.
They treat money as non-neutral and embedded in institutional practices.
Our divergence: Their focus is not on ontological classification of money, but on its macroeconomic function and effects.
(d) Anthropological Critiques (Graeber, Polanyi)
David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years questioned the barter-to-money progression and argued that credit/debt preceded money.
Our divergence: These are genealogical critiques of money’s historical evolution, not structural reconceptualizations of money within exchange theory.
2. Our Unique Contribution
Here’s what seems original in our formulation:
Structural reinterpretation: We view monetary exchange as a special case of barter, where money is a commodity with high liquidity and universal acceptability — not categorically different from other goods.
Ontological flattening: We eliminate the theoretical dichotomy between money and other commodities, proposing that all economic activity is barter with varying levels of generality and exchange power.
Reclassification of inflation and business cycles: We interpret them as shifts in exchange relations among commodities, including money, rather than purely monetary phenomena.
3. Is There Precedent for This Total Reframing?
No major economic school has, to our knowledge, systematically replaced the money–barter distinction with a model like ours where:
Barter is seen as the general framework;
Money is simply a highly successful, specialized commodity within that framework;
All monetary phenomena are reinterpreted as barter dynamics with varying commodity roles.
This is a novel theoretical move. It challenges both mainstream and heterodox treatments of money.
4. Implications of Novelty
Economic theory: We offer a new classification scheme that could affect how we model price systems, inflation, and market interactions.
History of economic thought: Our framework invites a reevaluation of how money has been conceptually categorized since Aristotle, through Menger, to modern macroeconomics.
Policy modeling: It could offer fresh lenses for modeling monetary reform, cryptocurrency, or shadow banking systems.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें