2013년 10월 25일 금요일

[Knapp's State Theory of Money] Chapter II. Currency within the Home Country

출처: Georg Friedrich Knapp, The State Theory of Money, London: Macmillan & Company (1924)
Section 6. Functional Classification of the Kinds of Money  (p. 93)
Section 7. Bimetallism and Types of Standard  (p. 113)
Section 8a. Bank-notes  (p. 128)
Section 8b. Giro or Transfer Payments  (p. 145)
Section 9. Agio of Accessory Money  (p. 157)
Section 10. The Piling Up of Accessory Money  (p. 177)
Section 11. Changes of Standard  (p. 194)
* * * 

§6. Classification of Kinds of Money according to their Functions  (p. 93)

Up to now we have classified means of payment only by origin.  The stage of Autometallism once overcome, money appears as a Chartal means of payment.  At first we dealt with it as issued by the State, with a mere allusion to money not issued by the State.  We then proceed genetically with the further classification of money and obtained four kinds.  [p. 93] 

   It is not asserted that as a matter of history each kind actually existed in some State or other by itself; and no preference is claimed for one of the four over the others.  My endeavour is to show how they differ from one another.  [p. 93]

   How the existing currency of a State is actually organised at a given time is quite a different question.  We shall assume a knowledge of primitive forms of money, and investigate how the monetary system of a State at a given time grows out of these primitive forms; for they can occur side by side.  It may be that an actual monetary system exhibits side by side kinds of money of fundamentally different origin.  In particular hylogenic and autogentic money may very well occur in combination.  [p. 94]

   Such complex monetary systems always presupposes a series of rules, which regulate the relations of the different types of money to one another.  These rules may be made by Statute, Ordinance, or Orders of the authorities.

   But for our purposes all that matters is that, in some way or another, the State has made the rules; we therefore mention those "regiminal rule," or rules of administration, merely to point out that we are not distinguishing their juridical characters one from another, but only the actual effect of them.  They give rise to subdivisions of monetary types which have not yet been noticed, because each kind of money has as yet been considered as existing alone.

   These new subdivisions are not genetic, like the former, but functional,[n1] i.e. they deal with the different ways in which kinds of money are used according to the kind of payment made and the legal rules affecting it.  Is a particular kind of money ^obligatory^ or not, ^definitive^ or not, and finally is it ^valuta^ or not?  These are technical terms to be explained.  [p. 94]
[n1] We are asking not how they came there, but what they do when they are others.ㅡTR.   

   If, as the Metallists do, we recognise as legitimate only one type, namely the hylogentic-orthotypic, our task would be simpler; but we aim not at a simple theory but an adequate one.  It is not our fault if States for historical reason possess complicated monetary systems, and, in such, the question at once arises, Where is the line to be drawn?  What forms part of the monetary system of the State and what does not?  We must not make our definition too narrow.

   The criterion cannot be that the money is issued by the State, for that would exclude kinds of money which are of the highest importance; I refer to bank-notes: they are not issued by the State, but they form a part of its monetary system.  Nor can legal tender be taken as the test, for in monetary systems there are very frequently kinds of money which are not legal tender (e.g. in Germany (1905) Treasury notes [n1] are not legal tender).
[n1] ^Rechtskassenscheine^, Imperial Treasury Warrants.
   We keep most closely to the facts if we take as our test, that the money is accepted in payments made to the States's offices.  Then all means by which a payment can be made to the State form part of the monetary system.  On this basis it is not the issue, but ^acceptation^, as we call it, which is decisive.  State acceptation delimits the monetary system.  By the expression "State-acceptation" is to be understood only the acceptance at State pay offices where the State is the recipient.  [p. 95]

   But, since the State pay offices are not all important, and include, for example, even the booking offices of State railways, be it said that only the large State pay offices are meant, and particularly those which take part in lytric administration under the direction of the State.  For instance, in Germany a great part of the lytric administration is in the hands of the Reichsbank[n1] (the precise nature of this institution does not matter), and for the Reichsbank, which is very far from being a merely private bank, the administrative rules are framed with particular precision.
[n1] Imperial Bank.
   The easiest way to reach our goal, which is the functional classification of kinds of money, is to distinguish whether or not the State takes part in a payment and, if so, in what way it does so.  Payments to which the State is a party, either as giver or receiver, will be called ^centric^, because the State is regarded as the centre from which the ordering of the business of payment radiates.  Payments in which the State takes no part either as giver or receiver we call ^paracentric^; such are all payments between private persons.  From the systematic point of view they are not so important as is generally supposed, for they mostly, so to speak, regulate themselves.

   Centric payments are either: (1) payments to the State as receiver; these we call ^epicentric^.  [p. 96]

   Accepting a means of payment in an epicentric payment means, as we have already said, State acceptation.  [p. 97]

   Or they are: (2) payments made by the State, these we will call ^apocentric^.  They are of the greatest importance in the functional classification, and it is very remarkable that hitherto they have been so little studied that they have gone without a name.

   We have accordingly the following classification:



By these characteristics the functional rules regulating the internal monetary system of a State can be easily drawn out.

   The most usual functional classification of money is whether it is legal tender or not.  Of course this relates only to those payments which are not epicentric; for we have taken the obligation to accept in epicentric payments as the criterion for State money.  When to this added the obligation to accept for anepicentric payments, the money becomes legal tender for all purposes.  In this case we will call the money obligatory, but, if it is not legal tender for anepicentric payments, so that the recipient's consent is necessary, then the money is facultative.  [p. 97]

   In this it has been tacitly assumed that the payment to be made is not smaller than the value of the piece of money which is tendered.  For, in law, it is always the duty of the payer to procure such pieces of money as are precisely equal to the sum to be paid.  It is never the duty of the recipient to give change, though he very often voluntarily does so.  [p. 98]

   In Germany the gold pieces in 1905 were obligatory money, but the thalers were so as well, because legally one was bound to accept them.  This does not imply that there was no functional difference between the gold pieces and the thalersㅡonly that the difference did not consist in the legal obligation to accept them, for this was common to both (in 1905).

   In Austria from 1857 the silver gulden were obligatory money, but from 1866 the State notes, and even the bank-notes, were also legal tender, for they were legal tender for anepicentric payments, and therefore for all and sundry payments.

   The subdivision of money into obligatory and facultativeㅡor, more precisely, into money which it is obligatory or facultative for the receiver to acceptㅡis totally independent of the question whether specie or nota money is under consideration.  By ^notal^ we mean what we above called ^paratypic^; our thalers wee notal, but yet obligatory; the Austrian notes were, as their name shows, notalㅡbut they were obligatory money.  So it is with other subdivisions already discussed.  [p. 98]

   The question whether certain kinds of money are obligatory or facultative depends on the amount of the payment.  The law draws the line, or fixes a "critical" amount.  For example by law silver coins were obligatory for payments of 20 marks and under, the nickel and copper pieces obligatory for payments of one mark and under.  Both kinds were facultative for payment which exceeded the critical amount.  But it is important to remember that we are referring to anepicentric payments (i.e. apocentric or paracentric); for it is fundamental that epicentric payments can be made by means of such kinds of money to an unlimited amount.  If there are exceptions to this rule they come from the the absent-mindedness of the legislator.  [p. 99]

   ( ... ) PDF 58

댓글 쓰기