In an article published in 2011 in this journal, Fred Moseley tries to discuss how the value of inconvertible credit money is determined in a Marxian theoretical tradition. In this critical comment, while sharing some crucial views with Moseley, the author makes a critique to some views in Moseley. The first critique concerns the so-called circular reasoning in the MELT as defined by the New Interpretation. The second concerns the relationship between Moseley’s MELT and capital accumulation. In his definition of MELT with inconvertible credit money, Moseley seems to overlook a theoretical tradition embodied especially in the work of Okishio-Foley-Kotz, which to different extents points out that the incentive and the real magnitude of capital accumulation or new investment play a crucial role in determining the value of inconvertible credit money.