Money is not an IOU; it's a TOM ("they owe me") Sept 12, 2017 22:13:14 GMT
Post by JP (admin) on Sept 12, 2017 22:13:14 GMT
What I have taken you to mean by 'define' is that 'a dollar' is a $1 LETS credit balance. But if we price goods in dollars before any LETS is in place, then a dollar must be something else. Why would 'a dollar' become something else overnight when LETS is introduced? I'm arguing that 'a dollar' remains as it is. The LETS is not about defining 'dollar' anew. It is about tracking where each individual stands in relation to his overall budget balance as he trades.
As I said earlier, it might look like LETS balances define the UoA, if all, or nearly all, trade takes place through the LETS.
Ok, here's what I mean by "define." The unit of account, say the dollar, is just a sign or a symbol, just like "f" represents "foot". The foot unit has a fixed definition, say it equals JP's foot length, or Antti's foot length, or the average male adult foot length. The definition can even change over time.
Likewise, the $ measuring unit is defined by something else, either custom or government edict setting the definition. Conventional thinking among monetary economists is that in modern systems, the unit of account is defined by the currently circulating medium of exchange, say a coin or a banknote. But we know that it needn't be the medium of exchange that defines the unit, since we can have abstract units of account like the UF or medieval ghost money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are going a step further and saying the unit of account has no definition whatsoever.
I'll leave you with that definition and see if it colours the remainder of your response.