SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:10:00 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
James C.W. Ahiakpor writes

>  Credit, I would contend, is the facility to make a purchase without money
(cash or currency); it is thus a substitute for money.

But Munro has written

>  Nightingale’s  second proposition, also endorsed by most of these
historians, is that the wide variety of credit instruments used in
late-medieval England were not yet negotiable

Thus the forms of credit under discussion were not a substitute for cash

The erroneous eliding of a distinction between 

A) having a line of credit with perhaps just one well established supplier, 

and 

B) having cash in your pocket and access to a competing range of potential
suppliers 

seems to me, again, to have a whiff of mercantilism about it.

Rob Tye, York UK

ATOM RSS1 RSS2