Steve,
Thanks for the quotes from Marx. Though I read them before (years
ago), it's good to have them in a computer file. I can't believe
that Marx said that the minimum level of the interest rate is
"altogether indeterminable." At least in the long run, the
real interest rate shouldn't be negative. Continuing, I agree
that Marx's view fits with a liquidity preference framework:
during a crisis, there's a scramble for liquidity that drives
up interest rates. I don't think Marx was clear about stocks
and flows, though.
More importantly, I'm wondering about the following quote (extracting
from your file):
(begin quote)
BTW, in the light of the long-past discussions I took part in on
pen-l on Marx's use-value/exchange-value logic, I can't resist
highlighting one of the following quotes:
`As in the case of labour-power, the use-value of money here is its
capacity of creating value a value greater than it contains.'<Ibid,
p. 392.>
(end quote)
My question: in this quote, is Marx talking at the level of
"appearances"? i.e., in reference to "the various forms of
capital, [as evolved in vol. III of CAPITAL] ..., [which]
thus approach step by step the form which they assume on the
surface of society, in the action of different capitals upon
one another,in competition, and in the ordinary consciousness
of the agents of production themselves"? (quote from first
page of vol. 3). Or is this quote at the level of abstract
capital, i.e., the hidden social structure that Marx reveals
in vol. I of CAPITAL?
If it is the former, it fits well with Marx's theory of
exploitation: an individual may claim a share of societal
surplus-value simply by lending and collecting interest
(M -M') because behind the scenes is the exploitation of
labor.
If it is the latter, then Marx is contradicting his own
theory: he's saying that one can earn interest, create
surplus-value, simply by lending, following what W.W.
Rostow termed "the magic of compound interest."
Reading the context of your quote, it looks like the
former interpretation is accurate: immediatately before,
he says "Instead of the actual transformation of money
into capital, we see here only form without content." I
interpret this as saying that M - M' is a pale imitation
of the actual production of surplus-value. Later he calls
M - M' "the fetish form of capital and the conception of
fetish capital" and "the meaningless form of capital."
To me, Marx is saying that even though it _seems_ in the
ordinary consciousness of the participants of the system
that money has the use-value of producing surplus-value
(and this consciousness is not simple false consciousness
but the fetishized view from the inside of the system)
_in reality_ this interest is a redistributed part of the
social surplus-value produced via the exploitation of labor.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
