> it should be noted that Graeber also cited Alfred Mitchell-Innes, a
> credit money theorist, in addition to citing Knapp. Nearly all modern
> Chartalists follow Minsky in acknowledging private individuals ability
> to generate money ("Anyone can create money, the trouble is getting it
> accepted"). On money's origins front, based on the literature I've
> read it seems pretty indisputable that money first appeared in it's
> modern (see institutional as opposed to tribal or communal) form in
> the Sumerian temples. Every modern Chartalist I've read acknowledges
> the ability of private individuals to create money. Credit and State
> theories of money is a rather good collection of chapters on this
> point (contact me off-list).
If a 'State theory of money' and/or a 'Credit theory of money' were just about what created money, it would be trivial. Who would deny that the vast bulk of modern money is the liability of a bank, or that it is denominated in standards nominated by states?
The problem with chartalism is that it asserts more than this, it overstates the power the state has over money on spurious grounds (the nomination of the standard and powers of taxation). In fact, states print numbers on their bills, but they do not set the quantities of commodities the numbers represent, or the quantity of actually-circulating tokens denominated in the numbers.
Money is an element in a system - it is reductionist to say it is in essence a thing either of the state, or of credit, or of the market. It is supported by all these relations and helps to hold them together as a system.
Mike