Premium
THE EMPIRICAL DEFINITION OF MONEY: A CRITIQUE
Author(s) -
MASON WILL E.
Publication year - 1976
Publication title -
economic inquiry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.823
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1465-7295
pISSN - 0095-2583
DOI - 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1976.tb00440.x
Subject(s) - economics , conceptualization , quantity theory of money , monetary policy , a priori and a posteriori , money measurement concept , endogenous money , empirical research , mathematical economics , positive economics , keynesian economics , velocity of money , philosophy , epistemology , linguistics
Money talks, but it does not give itself away. Lately there has been much talk about money, and even less agreement than heretofore about what it is. Because of the growing immateriality of money, the difficulty of defining it has waxed rather than waned with increased knowledge. This, of course, has not made the development of monetary theory or the determination of monetary policy any easier. Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz (hereafter referred to as F‐S) prefer an empirical definition of money to a priori definitions, such as the generally acceptable means of payment.1 However, they fail to demonstrate either that complete freedom from a priori conceptualization is possible or that such procedure can avoid circularity of reasoning.2 If there is no “right” definition of money (F‐S, 1970, pp. 137, 145–146, 151, 197–198), there is no “empirical” definition in the absence of the “right” monetary theory.