|
The
Hierarchy
of Money
|
The following
was excerpted, with some editing, from a paper of the same title by
Stephanie
Bell, written for The Jerome Levy Economics Institute.
In
the "Treatise
on Money," Keynes defines money of account
as the description
or title
and money as
the thing
that answers to the description. He goes on to say "if the same
thing
always answered to the same description, the distinction would have no
practical interest. But if the thing can change, whilst the
description
remains the same, then the distinction can be highly significant."
Why a Hierarchy
It
is because
different things do answer to the description of money that there
exists
a hierarchy of moneys. The description or title referred to by
Keynes
is the unit in which all money in the hierarchy is denominated.
In
the US the unit of account is the dollar. Thus all money in the
hierarchy is denominated in the dollar.
Why
the dollar?
Because the government's currency is the only legal means of
discharging
tax liabilities. Since taxes are recurring liabilities, the
private
sector will continuously need dollars. Nearly every household in
the US has dollar-denominated tax liabilities. That makes the
dollar
the standard unit of account for all money in the hierarchy.
Since
the private sector will always be indebted to the government in
dollars,
they will prefer to write all money contracts (make all promises) in
terms
of dollars.
IOUs as Money
The
creation
of money involves accepting another's debt, an IOU. The key to
making
an IOU into money is getting other individuals or institutions to
accept
it. Thus the hierarchy of money can be thought of as a
multi-tiered
pyramid where the tiers represent IOUs (promises) with differing
degrees
of acceptability. At the apex is the most acceptable, the State's
IOU, i.e. the dollar. Every plane ticket, pre-paid phone card,
movie
ticket, subway token, etc. is a form of money. The list is
endless
so we will focus on the most important groups of promise makers - the
government,
banks, non-bank firms, and households.
The Hierarchy
of Multi-Layered Promises
When
a firm issues
a promise, e.g. commercial paper, it promises to convert that promise
on
some specified date into a bank's promise, namely a demand
deposit.
Likewise when a household makes a promise, e.g. issues debt to a credit
card company, it promises to convert its promise to a bank's
promise.
The secret to getting household and business debts accepted is an
assurance
that they are convertible into the promise of someone higher in the
pyramid.
Commercial
paper,
bonds, and credit card debt will be discharged by delivering the
promise
of the bank. However unlike households and firms, State promises
and certain bank promises would be accepted even if they were not
convertible
into anything else.
It
is easy to
see why the State's liabilities have come to serve as the means of
payment
and as a medium of exchange in private transactions. It is not
their
status as legal tender per se, but their acceptance in payment of taxes
and other debts to the State that makes them the most acceptable and
liquid
money in the hierarchy.
Unique Status of Bank Promises
Even
though banks
make their promises (demand deposits) convertible on demand into the
State's
promises (State money), that is not the reason they are accepted.
It is because bank money is accepted at State pay-offices that it,
along
with State currency, is treated as the definitive money of the
system.
The State does not pay its liabilities by converting to something
else.
It has in effect already paid for them as tax credits in the form of
State
money.
Demand
deposits
at banks have attained a special status in our economy because of the
unique
role commercial banks have come to play. Since the central bank
guarantees
that demand deposits will trade at par with State currency, and because
they are accepted in payment of taxes, bank deposits are nearly as
liquid
as State money and therefore occupy the second tier in the pyramid.
Lower-Tier
Promises
Promises
of firms
and households occupy the third and fourth tiers, respectively.
This
is because there is at least some chance that they will not trade at
par
with State money. Promises of firms stand ahead because they can
usually be traded in secondary markets and are therefore more readily
convertible.
The
structure
and hierarchy of money can only be understood in the context of money
as
promises of varying acceptability, with State money at the apex.
Next
Article Home
|