Kevin wrote: >I agree with Matt Forstater that human monetary systems typically involve >infinite regress valuation. I am apparently not expressing myself very clearly. First, James thought I was saying "fiat currency" is "undesirable," and now Kevin thinks I was saying that I support the infinite regress argument. I meant to characterize Kevin's view as the "typical infinite regress argument" and to indicate that the tax liability payable in government currency is the way out of the circular argument. As Abba Lerner put it, in Encyclopaedia Britannica: Any particular seller will accept as money what he can use for buying things himself or for settling his own obligations. This seems to say that a means of payment will be generally acceptable if it is already generally acceptable, and it looks like a circular argument. But it only means that general acceptability is not easily established. General acceptability may come about gradually. If a growing number of people are willing to accept payment in a particular form, this makes others willing to accept that kind of payment. General acceptability may be established rapidly if very important sellers or creditors are willing to accept payment in a particular form of money. For example if the government announces its readiness to accept a certain means of payment in settlement of taxes, taxpayers will be willing to accept this means of payment because they can use it to pay taxes. Everyone else will then be willing to accept it because they can use it to buy things from the taxpayers, or to pay debts to them, or to make payments to others who have to make payments to the taxpayers, and so on. (Lerner, 1946, p. 693) Beyond that, I leave it to Eric Tymoigne's excellent post recently forwarded by John Henry to sort out the rest. Best, Mathew Forstater