IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Money (Real and Fictitious)Game, Banking and Taxation


  • Krishna Gopal Misra



'Reality of money' is curiously similar to uncertainty theory of (Hisenburg)quantum physics. To some (natural societies), legitimatimacy of exchange control is derived by associating it with certain physical signifiance of 'real' goods. Exchange control is thus decided by producers in commodity exchanges. Others (Republicans of Greek civilization) think, money can be only a symbolic or fictitious unit, and any physical significance attached to it will undermine sanctity (in respect to space and time) of money used as unit for measurement of the prices. Under these circumstanes, exchange control is monopoly of republics and debt engine produces competition and enterprises in people. There are two worlds. Performance of markets (Republics vrs Natural Societies) are going to test which of the prespective and understanding are true and for how long. This article discusses the valuation of prices, unit price or measuring unit for prices, ligitimacy of exchange control in markets, invention of commodity exchanges using 'real' money, invention of 'fictitious' money, banking, state monpoly of exchange control and mathematical legitimacy of interests and taxation.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishna Gopal Misra, 2005. "Money (Real and Fictitious)Game, Banking and Taxation," General Economics and Teaching 0506005, EconWPA.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0506005
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 9

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Sauer, Raymond D, 1988. "Estimates of the Returns to Quality and Coauthorship in Economic Academia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 855-866, August.
    2. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
    3. Thomson, William, 2011. "A Guide for the Young Economist," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 026251589x, July.
    4. Trivedi, Pravin K, 1993. "An Analysis of Publication Lags in Econometrics," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 93-100, Jan.-Marc.
    5. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    6. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Sharon M. Oster, 2002. "Tools or Toys? The Impact of High Technology on Scholarly Productivity," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(4), pages 539-555, October.
    7. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    8. Oster, Sharon, 1980. "The Optimal Order for Submitting Manuscripts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 444-448, June.
    9. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    10. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    11. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
    12. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 994-1034, October.
    13. Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-1349, December.
    14. Renée M. Stulz, 2000. "Report of the Editor for His Tenure and 1999," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1861-1892, August.
    15. Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
    16. Moore, William J & Newman, Robert J & Turnbull, Geoffrey K, 2001. "Reputational Capital and Academic Pay," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(4), pages 663-671, October.
    17. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    money; price; economics; state; production;

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0506005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.