Historiosophical Aspects of the Monetary Globalization (original) (raw)
Related papers
Geoeconomic Aspects of the Monetary Globalization
JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN ECONOMY, 2020
Author defines monetary globalization and examines the historical process of spreading money and cash nexus across the globe. It is stated that money developed almost simultaneously in three great civilizations (Europe, India, China), but over time the Hellenistic form of money absorbed and universalized all other forms of money. The author examines in detail the process of distribution of metallic and then credit form of money and their impact on economic globalization. All these processes occurring both in the markets of separate countries or small regions and at the international level (where money started to act as global currency almost immediately after its appearance) constitute the essence of the monetary globalization. The author dwells on the post-Bretton Woods period of development of the World Monetary System, believing that the extensive phase of monetary globalization has come to an end at this stage and its further development will be caused by fundamental qualitative...
History International Monetary
The international monetary system is the structure within which foreign exchange rates are determined, international trade and capital flows are accommodated, and balance-of-payments adjustments made. This article will discuss the evolution of the international monetary regimes starting from the pre 1875, metalism standard to date when the flexible exchange rate regime now operating since 1973. The other regimes are the classical gold standard, inter war period, the fixed dollar exchange rate regime under the Bretton Woods system after the WWII. When discussing the monetary regimes highlights of the strengths and weaknesses of each regime will be brought out, and thereafter form a conclusion about the most beneficial and stable regime.
Partecipazione e Conflitto, 2020
Since the beginning of the new millennium, a great variety of experiences of monetary innovation has taken place worldwide. Actually, very assorted types of social agents, at very different levels of interaction and with very diverse purposes and results, are creating a plethora of global, macro-regional, local or deterritorialized currencies seriously defying both the hegemonic role of the US dollar, and the traditional agents, methods and criteria related to money's creation and circulation. Given such a picture, the main aim of this essay is to characterize and valuate the principle features of the ongoing process of monetary innovation, in light of its modern and contemporary history. We adopt an interdisciplinary theoretical frame, based on the ground of the political sociology and the world system theory, and a genealogical method focused on the monetary history of the United States. The main result here presented is the centrality of the dialectic between innovation and r...
Local Currencies In European History: An Analytical Framework
Post-Print, 2006
Although today's main organisation principle of monetary spaces is the nation-state's one, everyone can see it is not totally the case because of the existence and the development of local and social currencies and other sorts of parallel currencies. European history gives very useful ...
Money, as a paradoxical concept And money is the human civilization , as nobody can deny it and as essential for all human development(s). In such a context, money starts with three paradoxes of its own (Andrei 2007, pp. 15-17). First, it is man made, written matter and old enough. All the other writings, philosophies and philosophical systems, architecture, civilizations, as human creations, die one after another. They may be the older the more highly valuable, but vestiges at the same. On the contrary, money, as a so old creation, is still and very vivid and working. But there is not its long life already its extraordinary point, but the aspect that the money existence looks endless, as seen from both the oldest times and today. And this is for money, as so similarly to . . . the Scriptures. Plenty of coins, banknotes and other money pieces are subjects of numismatics, but money is still not a vestige. On the other hand, there was once an ideology claiming that money was an economic relation among subjects which would end ones time, in a predictable future. That was communism and recent enough—but it was the communism ending first. The second paradox of money is that it measures what? The market value, isn’t it ? And this is for the long thousands of years that it is. Or, the market value, as a concept, was almost clarified in . . . the nineteenth century, by Marxism and marginalism, two currents of thinking of the same age and geographical origins 3 . I say the value concept, as almost clarified, because the two scholar thoughts saw the value sources in some opposite ways: the Marxian view was finding this source in labour—so, in a factor of production, in the production itself, as opposite to consumption —, whereas marginalists here identified utility and rarity—so, it was market and consumption leading this process. The further these irreconcilable theories in the history of economics, in their turn, the less clear the value concept for the next following 20 th century—and that whereas money does its job without any interference of basic economics. All the more, every State, since the ancient times, declares its metric system of measuring, see length, volume, and money market value. Finally, the third paradox here comes when considering the market value measured by money, as a social convention qualified under another concept—I mean the one of the experiment. Money is an experiment of a really special condition from at least two points of view. Firstly, it is an experiment not made, as usually, just once for some other application to come, but an experiment repeated from its very beginning for its own purpose, as implemented. Nobody doubts about the length, volume or electricity that are measured by our conventional specific units, as much as these dimensions are very material—but nobody doubts about money, as measuring value either, in the same circumstances. Secondly, let us admit that all experiments base and develop from fields It is about the so-called “German ideology”, birth and consuming itself in the second half of the nineteenth century. Actually, Marignalism meant three Schools in Europe: (i) the German and Austrian one, that is here referred (Menger; Bohm-Bowerk); (ii) the Swiss one (Leon Walras; Vilfredo Pareto); (iii) the British one (Alfred Marshall). of science, as individuals. In which conditions, money is agreed to result from the economic field. But then, two problems arise. The first is that the economy and economics, correspondingly, are not quite appropriate to laboratories and experiments 4 , as the exact sciences are likely to be developed, in their turn—experiments in economy are very rare and exceptional 5 . But, let us admit an experiment like money, on a so large scale, as an equally exceptional success. Then, another problem remains: money was born as an experiment of economics, whereas economics were coming to become a very science a long time afterwards.
Money and Monetary Stability in Europe, 1300-1914
Journal of Monetary Economics, 2019
This Discussion Paper is issued under the auspices of the Centre's research programme in ECONOMIC HISTORY and MONETARY ECONOMICS AND FLUCTUATIONS. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of the Centre for Economic Policy Research. Research disseminated by CEPR may include views on policy, but the Centre itself takes no institutional policy positions. The Centre for Economic Policy Research was established in 1983 as an educational charity, to promote independent analysis and public discussion of open economies and the relations among them. It is pluralist and non-partisan, bringing economic research to bear on the analysis of medium-and long-run policy questions. These Discussion Papers often represent preliminary or incomplete work, circulated to encourage discussion and comment. Citation and use of such a paper should take account of its provisional character.