Beginning with a critique of traditional conceptions of its origins and governance, the research will explore alternative theories of money, often marginalised, and the production of value to find theoretical consistency with an ideology that has, since its inception, pursued a “third way” between the liberal and socialist traditions which influenced orthodoxy and heterodoxy, respectively.
The project of this dissertation is to locate theories, paradigms and ideologies which fall between such arguments and look to actual historical and market practices, worldwide, for a more realistic depiction of the production, circulation and historical origins of one of the most important institutions in the modern world, money. But this dichotomy is false and moreover historically inaccurate, resting on nothing more than fictions. Similarly, as presented, each claims sole ownership of any real prospects for human organisation. These arguments are mutually exclusive, incompatible and oppositional. The logic of the market begins from a position where all are individuals and none indebted to anybody. The logic of the state begins from a position of debt, where society is constituted by groups and individuals indebted to one another, with no hope of ever repaying this. The logic of the state and the logic of the market. Humanity is presented with two oppositional arguments. In many ways, the results of the “Methodenstreit” or “method debate” represent one of the great deceptions of the twentieth century. These academic debates similarly revolved around money and its origins. Traditionally, such questions are polarised according to the traditional ideological and paradigmatic positions, emanating as they do from academic debates between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. The agenda of this research dissertation is the exploration of a “third way” for theorisation in monetary theory and a study of the implications of this for contemporary deliberations on the effects of monetary policy on the global political economy.
0 kommentar(er)
