>in general and not to any one person. I feel that by separating the class
>and non-class aspects og finance and debt will greatly clear up some of the
>issues. For example, if we define class processes by their relationship
>to surplus value then the class prcesses become clearer. The subsumed class
>(possibly financiers) is only engaged in a class process if the interest
>paid to them is infact a distribution of SV. Interest paid by consumers or
>interest paid through Ponzi deals are not distributions of SV and hence
>the group of institutions which provide the debt are engaged in non-class
>processes.
why?? why aren't interest payments by consumers part of SV? why aren't
interest payments from Ponzi deals? (when interest is actually paid --
Ponzi deals almost inevitably fall aprt apart.)
>The integration of non-class and class processes in finance provides a
>valuable tool in terms of understanding not only interest rates but also
>crisis. It is true that the financiers are fighting over their share of SV.
>However, they are also engaged in non-class struggles which are not linked
>to SV. For example, in Minsky's theorization of Ponzi financing debt is used
>primarily for paying past debt. Therefore, no SV was created and interest
>rates were very high with profits (SV) being very low.
I think what this isa about is the difference between fictitious capital
-- which expected to give one a claim on surplus value ex ante --
and the real thing, which actually delivers. There's a g big difference
between expectations and reality (especially in a Ponzi scheme).
Or did I misunderstand David?
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
