This study endeavors to investigate the theory of the value of money from the vantage point of late scholastic scholars, with a specific focus on the Salamanca School and the two prevailing monetary doctrines: Objectivism (Metallism) and Subjectivism (Chartalism). Our investigation employs the classical works of late scholastic thinkers from the 15th to the 17th centuries to illuminate the perspectives held by the Salamanca School concerning monetary value. The findings affirm that the twofold theory of money value proposed by (...) late scholastic thinkers constitutes a nuanced iteration of the multidimensional approach to money. This comprehensive framework encompasses various facets of value, such as the final, actual, formal, and material dimensions. Moreover, the conspicuous emphasis placed by late scholastic thinkers on the subjective aspects of money value imparts a multifaceted character to their theory, demonstrating striking parallels with modern subjective doctrine. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Advocates of Bitcoin and Modern Monetary Theory present their ideas as radical utopian alternatives to the neoliberal dominant, but these claims neglect the utopian strain in neoliberal monetary theory itself. This strain manifests in that theory’s faith in the capacity of markets to perfect human society. Bitcoin and Modern Monetary Theory express this same faith. After a brief survey of the older, more radical money utopias of More and Proudhon, this article traces the origins of Bitcoin and MMT in (...) the more conventional monetary theories of metallism and chartalism and then analyzes the utopian discourse of both movements, revealing that Bitcoin sees state intervention as the only obstacle to properly functioning markets, while MMT blames disfunction on an inadequate mobilization of labor, proposing state intervention as the remedy. In both cases, their policies only seek to enable the utopian potential of the market, falling in line with neoliberal orthodoxy. The conclusion offers some speculation about what the emergence of these two theories might tell us about the future of neoliberalism. (shrink)

The answer to the question 'what is money?' has changed throughout history. During the Gold Standard era, money was seen as gold or silver (the theory known as bullionism). In the early 20th century, the alternative theory known as chartalism proposed that money was a token chosen by the state for payment of taxes. Today, many economists take an agnostic line, and argue that money is best defined in terms of its function, e.g. as a neutral medium of exchange. (...) This paper argues that none of these approaches adequately describes the nature of money, and proposes a new theory, inspired by non-Newtonian physics, which takes into account the dualistic real/virtual properties and complex nature of money. The theory is applied to the example of the emergence of cybercurrencies. (shrink)