RE this discussion of Marx's theory of the interest rate.
I've been considering recently the notion of "averages" in
Marx's theory and its possible relationship to the notion
of "averages" in mid-19th century statistical theory. Here
are some not-too-well-thought-out ideas related to that which
might reflect on the interest rate discussion.
First, Marx was aware of then-current writing on statistics and
read in 1851 one of the key statistical works by Quetelet.
Not suprisingly, Marx took extensive notes on this book
(but what didn't Marx read and take notes on!)
Second, Marx invokes this same Quetelet in Capital's
discussion of "average labor-power" (in the very first
part of vol 1, chapter 13: Co-operation, Vintage edition).
Marx's discussion here shows a notion of means and random
errors: "These individual differences, or 'errors' as they are called
in mathematics, compensate each other and vanish whenever
a certain minimum number of workers are employed together."
What does this have to do with interest rates, etc? Well, my
impression is that Marx accepted a key component of
19th century statistical theory and social theory: that averages
found in society were NOT the result of individual actions but
were the products of society. Society determined norms and
individuals 'deviated' from these norms. (The notion of "standard
deviation" was directly related to the idea of "norms").
More precisely, it appears that 19th century statisticians and
many social theorists accepted that an individual's behavior
(or, more generally, any average of aggregate behavior) was
expressed as:
X(i) = NORM + deviation(i).
That is, society determined the norm, but individuals have some
measure of free will to deviate from the norm. Importantly,
explaining the mean (or the NORM) required invoking society,
culture, or the economy. It did not involve invoking individuals
or accidents which only explained deviations from the norm.
More precisely, as regards Marx, averages and temporal changes
in averages were explained by reference to social forces and not
by reference to individuals or accidents.
If I'm right about the above, then the interest rate would have
been determined in Marx's theory by some social force and not
by simple individual interactions or supply/demand related to
accidental factors. But, then again, I might be wrong.
That is, the interest rate for, say, an individual lender might be
r(i) = X + deviation(i)
where X is determined by some underlying social force that has
its origins apart from individual market participants' actions.
Restatement: discussions of Marx's notion of "average" in
the current day might not take into account 19th century
perspectives on this term. Instead, we might bring to the
table notions that are anachronistic: the connotations of
"average" to us might be quite different to the connotations
of "average" to Marx.
In the spirit of historicism,
Eric
..
Eric Nilsson
Department of Economics
California State University
San Bernardino, CA 92407
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
