David

This is an excellent question steep in institutionalism. I think that J. R. Commons’ two ways classification of economic doctrines into past, present, and future time on the one hand, and  contract-account on the other is the anchor point where Keynes's and Marx's Money of Account ideas meet. Some points that I think that are worth considering are:

·         “The ownership of value is the present right to the expected exchange-value of things, and it is this right that has a present value-in-exchange.” [Commons, John R., Legal Foundations of Capitalism,  [Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press,  1968].

·         The individual is at liberty “...to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all  contracts  which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purpose”. (Ibid., p. 17.)

·          “...assets and liabilities are valued with reference to two different markets.” which he calls the “commodity markets” and “...the market for debts” (Ibid., p. 159.) Commons proceeds to complicate his discussions in regards to “time” on the one hand, and  “...a third class of assets having a peculiar position between commodities and debts, namely, that special case of  “intangible” property, consisting of patents rights, copyrights, trade-name, goodwill, business reputation, good credit.” (Ibid., p. 159.) on the other hand.

We may want to connect Commons with Veblen’s theory of leisure class for its equating human behavior to that of the savages. Veblen likened the behavior of the gentlemen with  the manners and behavior of the bush people.

Dear Lall,

Your answer is very much appreciated. This helps tremendously. Thanks!

Best,

David