INTRODUCTION

This study opened by posing the dilemma currently facing neoclassical monetary theorists. Ultimately this dilemma was seen to arise from the contradictions which result from attempts to develop monetary theory within the tradition of what Schumpeter called Real Analysis. In Real Analysis, real forces determine long- period equilibrium and money is neutral, i.e. a veil. One objective of this study has been both to highlight the sterility of this view and to remind the reader that it is based on a historically dated concept of the economy; an agricultural, commodity money economy of self- employed farmers and artisans in which Say's Law holds. In a capitalist economy with a well- developed financial sector, the assumptions of the Say's Law economy are no longer valid. To avoid the dilemma of neoclassical monetary theory it is therefore necessary to abandon the framework of Real Analysis and begin with the foundations of monetary theory in the tradition of Monetary Analysis. The behaviour of a capitalist economy is compatible with the properties of Monetary but not Real Analysis. The foundations of monetary theory are thus to be found within the tradition of Monetary Analysis – this is a fundamental conclusion. Accordingly, this chapter summarizes the arguments1 which support it and briefly draws out some policy implications.