Credit and State Theories of Money
Show Less

Credit and State Theories of Money

The Contributions of A. Mitchell Innes

Edited by L. Randall Wray

In 1913 and 1914, A. Mitchell Innes published a pair of articles that stand as two of the best pieces written in the twentieth century on the nature of money. Only recently rediscovered, these articles are reprinted and analyzed here for the first time.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 7: The Emergence of Capitalist Credit Money

Geoffrey Ingham


Geoffrey Ingham INTRODUCTION: ECONOMICS AND HISTORY; MONEY AND CREDIT I N THE late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, academic economics took on the conceptual and methodological complexion by which it is clearly recognizable today. During the famous methodological conflict (Methodenstreit) at this time, economics separated itself from other social and historical sciences and put forward its imperialist claim to provide a superior explanation of all the phenomena customarily dealt with by its academic kin (Swedberg 1987; Machlup 1978; Schumpeter 1994 [1954]; Ingham 1996a). Analytical economics claimed to be universally valid. The ‘laws’ of supply and demand, for example, were considered to be equally applicable to the ancient economies and primitive societies as they were to the modern world. Historical change in general and the advance of the ‘wealth of nations’, in particular, were seen as the result of increasing efficiency in the conduct of human economic affairs. Throughout the nineteenth century it was asserted with an increasing confidence that the twin universal processes of the division of labour and market exchange, together with an understanding and application of the laws that governed their development, had brought about these enormous transformations. The proponents of this new ‘high theory’ in economics looked upon the analytical simplicity of their models as evidence of their sophistication. The more abstractly and mathematically they expressed their theorems, the more scientifically prestigious they could claim to be. The relationship of the ‘pure’ theory of exchange to economic reality, they argued, was of exactly the same kind as...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.