RE: marx on money
On Fri, 4 Mar 1994, Jim Devine wrote: > (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that > simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities? > Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree: it is the latter. Gil Skillman > disagrees with us. Depends on what's done with the borrowed money, doesn't it? If it is invested productively & profitably, yes; if it goes to buy groceries or rubies, no. An awful lot of borrowing these days goes to the latter sort of spending - not to mention government spending. Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax)
RE: marx on money
On Fri, 4 Mar 1994, Jim Devine wrote: > (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that > simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities? > Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree: it is the latter. Gil Skillman > disagrees with us. Depends on what's done with the borrowed money, doesn't it? If it is invested productively & profitably, yes; if it goes to buy groceries or rubies, no. An awful lot of borrowing these days goes to the latter sort of spending - not to mention government spending. Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax)
Re: Marx on Money
Dear Jim, A lot of debates on pen-l are foundered on misunderstandingd ogf previous postings. So thanks for your 2 point su mmary of the areas of agreement disagreement re use-value and money--they are entirely accurate.
Re: Marx on Money
Dear Jim, A lot of debates on pen-l are foundered on misunderstandingd ogf previous postings. So thanks for your 2 point su mmary of the areas of agreement disagreement re use-value and money--they are entirely accurate.
Job
FROM: MAYHEW " ANNE " SMC The University of Tennessee (big, Carnegie I university) is searching for a Director for the Energy, Environment and REsources Center. This is a unit for multidisciplinary policy research in the areas of energy, waste management and the environment. Faculty and research associates from Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Ecology, Biology, Chemistry, Engineeering, etc. are associated. The Director should have experience managing people and money; experience managing interdisciplinary efforts, knowledge of funding sources and demonstrated success in getting funding, and a strong record of publication. It is a good and important job. If you know anyone both interested and qualififed please ask them to contact me (Pa107018@UTKVM1 or Department of Econ, U of TN, Knoxville, TN 37996-0550) for more information. Thanks. --- Anne Mayhew
Job
FROM: MAYHEW " ANNE " SMC The University of Tennessee (big, Carnegie I university) is searching for a Director for the Energy, Environment and REsources Center. This is a unit for multidisciplinary policy research in the areas of energy, waste management and the environment. Faculty and research associates from Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Ecology, Biology, Chemistry, Engineeering, etc. are associated. The Director should have experience managing people and money; experience managing interdisciplinary efforts, knowledge of funding sources and demonstrated success in getting funding, and a strong record of publication. It is a good and important job. If you know anyone both interested and qualififed please ask them to contact me (Pa107018@UTKVM1 or Department of Econ, U of TN, Knoxville, TN 37996-0550) for more information. Thanks. --- Anne Mayhew
Re: Marx on Money
Jim's reply to my comment that there were times when Marx saw use-value as
quantitative was (IMHO) correct to describe Marx as having two ways of
referring to use-value: as a thing "a by bicycle is a use-value" and
a set of objective (not subjective) qualities. He contrasted this to the
neoclassicals, who see use-value (utility) as subjective and quantifiable
(in the ordinal or marginal utilty sense; Jim's comments about "utils",
however, is entirely appropriate when dsrawing a distinction between
Marx's usage and that of neoclasasicals).
However, I argue that the distinction between Marx's suage and the
neoclassicals is a lot more complex (and subtle) than just that. Marx
had a "doa (yuk) "dialectic of commodities", from which he derived most
of his most important resulkts, including the source of surplus value.
The basis of the dialectic was the primacy of the commodity under
capitalism, and the two aspects of the commodity, its use-value and
its exchange-value. Capitalism is based on the production of exchange-values
(while previous societies may have been oriented towards the production
of use-values). Use-value therefore does not motivate capitalists (though
"increases" in utility may well motivate individual exchanges, as Mrax
allows:
"So far as regards use-values, it is clear that both parties
may gain some advantage", not through the
maximisation of "abstract utility", but because "Both
part with goods that, as use-values, are of no service to them,
and receive others that they can make use of." Capital Vol 1,
p. 155.
UUse-value is a pre-requisite to an exchange, but exchange-value
is its object. Generally speaking, use-value is irrelevant to
political economy, BUT in the particular instance of commodities
purchased specifically for production, use-value is relevant. As an'objective thing,
its use-value to its capitalist purchaser in this instance is quantitative:
its ability to produce new value. Thus in general, use-value is
objective and qualitative ("a bike can be ridden", not "the satisfaction
riding the bike gives me is 5 utils"); but in the case of commodities
purchased as inputs to production (including labor-power) use-value is
objective and quantitative. The following excerpt--from the close of
the Grundrisse--I hope at least illustrates the importance Marx
attached to use-value in his analysis (i.e., it's role doesn't
start and stop at being apre-requisite to exchange, which is the
conventional interpretation of Marx):
"The first category in which bourgeois wealth
presents itself is that of the *commodity*. The commodity
itself appears as unity of two aspects. It is *use-value*,
i.e. object of the satisfaction of any system whatever of human
needs. This is its material side, which the most disparate epochs
of production may have in common, and whose examination therefore
lies beyond political economy. Use-value falls within the
realm of political economy as soon as it becomes modified by the
modern relations of production, or as it, in turn, intervenes to
modify them... Now how does use-value become transformed
into commodity? Vehicle of *exchange value*. Although
directly united in the commodity, use-value and exchange value
just as directly split apart. Not only does the exchange value
not appear as determined by the use-value, but rather
furthermore, the commodity only becomes a commodity, only
realises itself as exchange value, in so far as its owner does
not relate to it as use-value." (Grundrisse, Penguin, p. 881)
As an instance (and I can supply many!) of Marx discussing use-value
as a quantitative (but objective) thing, the following quote from
Theories of Surplus Value, Part I, should suffice:
use-value of labour power is precisely the excess of the quantity
of labour which it performs over the quantity of labour which is
materialised in the labour power itself and hence is required to
reproduce it. Naturally, it supplies this quantity of labour
*in the determinate form* inherent in it as labour which has
a particular utility, such as spinning labour, weaving labour,
etc. But this concrete character, which is what enables it to
take the form of a commodity, is not its *specific use-value*
for capital. Its specific use-value for capital consists in its
quantity as labour in general, and in the difference, the excess,
of the quantity of labour which it performs *over* the
quantity of labour which it costs." , p. 400
It's hard to go past the final sentence": "Its e specific use-value
for capital consists in its QUANTITY as labour in general, and in
the difference, the excess, of the quantity of labour which
it performs over the quantity of labour which it cost."
So: in general, use-value is quan (yuk) qualitative, objective, and
outside PE. Dialectically, however, from the point of view of
the capitalist purchaser of inputs to production, use-value is
quantitative, objective. From this dialectic, Marx derives the
suource of surplus value.
The quote which began this exchan
Re: Marx on Money
Jim's reply to my comment that there were times when Marx saw use-value as
quantitative was (IMHO) correct to describe Marx as having two ways of
referring to use-value: as a thing "a by bicycle is a use-value" and
a set of objective (not subjective) qualities. He contrasted this to the
neoclassicals, who see use-value (utility) as subjective and quantifiable
(in the ordinal or marginal utilty sense; Jim's comments about "utils",
however, is entirely appropriate when dsrawing a distinction between
Marx's usage and that of neoclasasicals).
However, I argue that the distinction between Marx's suage and the
neoclassicals is a lot more complex (and subtle) than just that. Marx
had a "doa (yuk) "dialectic of commodities", from which he derived most
of his most important resulkts, including the source of surplus value.
The basis of the dialectic was the primacy of the commodity under
capitalism, and the two aspects of the commodity, its use-value and
its exchange-value. Capitalism is based on the production of exchange-values
(while previous societies may have been oriented towards the production
of use-values). Use-value therefore does not motivate capitalists (though
"increases" in utility may well motivate individual exchanges, as Mrax
allows:
"So far as regards use-values, it is clear that both parties
may gain some advantage", not through the
maximisation of "abstract utility", but because "Both
part with goods that, as use-values, are of no service to them,
and receive others that they can make use of." Capital Vol 1,
p. 155.
UUse-value is a pre-requisite to an exchange, but exchange-value
is its object. Generally speaking, use-value is irrelevant to
political economy, BUT in the particular instance of commodities
purchased specifically for production, use-value is relevant. As an'objective thing,
its use-value to its capitalist purchaser in this instance is quantitative:
its ability to produce new value. Thus in general, use-value is
objective and qualitative ("a bike can be ridden", not "the satisfaction
riding the bike gives me is 5 utils"); but in the case of commodities
purchased as inputs to production (including labor-power) use-value is
objective and quantitative. The following excerpt--from the close of
the Grundrisse--I hope at least illustrates the importance Marx
attached to use-value in his analysis (i.e., it's role doesn't
start and stop at being apre-requisite to exchange, which is the
conventional interpretation of Marx):
"The first category in which bourgeois wealth
presents itself is that of the *commodity*. The commodity
itself appears as unity of two aspects. It is *use-value*,
i.e. object of the satisfaction of any system whatever of human
needs. This is its material side, which the most disparate epochs
of production may have in common, and whose examination therefore
lies beyond political economy. Use-value falls within the
realm of political economy as soon as it becomes modified by the
modern relations of production, or as it, in turn, intervenes to
modify them... Now how does use-value become transformed
into commodity? Vehicle of *exchange value*. Although
directly united in the commodity, use-value and exchange value
just as directly split apart. Not only does the exchange value
not appear as determined by the use-value, but rather
furthermore, the commodity only becomes a commodity, only
realises itself as exchange value, in so far as its owner does
not relate to it as use-value." (Grundrisse, Penguin, p. 881)
As an instance (and I can supply many!) of Marx discussing use-value
as a quantitative (but objective) thing, the following quote from
Theories of Surplus Value, Part I, should suffice:
use-value of labour power is precisely the excess of the quantity
of labour which it performs over the quantity of labour which is
materialised in the labour power itself and hence is required to
reproduce it. Naturally, it supplies this quantity of labour
*in the determinate form* inherent in it as labour which has
a particular utility, such as spinning labour, weaving labour,
etc. But this concrete character, which is what enables it to
take the form of a commodity, is not its *specific use-value*
for capital. Its specific use-value for capital consists in its
quantity as labour in general, and in the difference, the excess,
of the quantity of labour which it performs *over* the
quantity of labour which it costs." , p. 400
It's hard to go past the final sentence": "Its e specific use-value
for capital consists in its QUANTITY as labour in general, and in
the difference, the excess, of the quantity of labour which
it performs over the quantity of labour which it cost."
So: in general, use-value is quan (yuk) qualitative, objective, and
outside PE. Dialectically, however, from the point of view of
the capitalist purchaser of inputs to production, use-value is
quantitative, objective. From this dialectic, Marx derives the
suource of surplus value.
The quote which began this exchan
Canadian College Tuition
Beyond the fact that tuitions have risen over the past decade or two, there is another more fundamental shift underway and that is the public policy shift, and to use Chomsky's phrase" the "selling of the privatization of higher education". Here privatization means both growth of the private sector and the "full-fee-for-service" approach to state owned institutions. (No longer state _supported_. Universities are the most "fordest" of modern production units. As the auto industry has consolidated global power and outsourced at the same time, the typical university has acted like a 1950's auto manufacturer. It has deepened its administrative structure and built more physical factory. With a shift in the ability of the state to pay (budget/debt crunch and mini-Structural Adjust ment Programs, from whatever sources) a change in attitude has made it less fashionable to fund higher education. Arguments about externalities and about social justice and mobility through education carry less weight. Where does that leave us and where are we likely to go? It leaves us, in the short run, with higher tuition fees. The quantitative effects of this have been masked by two other factors, the rise in the demand for "skills" at the job entry level, and the lack of jobs which has driven the reserve army of the unemployed (redundant army of the unemployed) to school as something to do and something which increases their odds of work, and the reduced role of education in social mobility (only those who can pay will go). In the somewhat longer run enrollment will fall off as a combination of ability to pay and the lower probability of finding a relevant job both raise the cost and reduce the expected value of the education. It is noted that the lack of jobs has also reduced the opportunity cost component of attending school at the present time and as the expected value of education falls, less attractive jobs will become relevant as "opportunity cost" jobs. (Here I know of people recently laid off as police in Northern California who -last night- started as security guards in Las Vegas at $6/hr. They have applied for a job with the Las Vegas police department where the department quit receiving applications after 1200 people had applied for 73 job openings. The last large hotel to open in Las Vegas had 100,000 applications for 8,000 jobs!) In the long run two things will happen. First, as the expected value of the education falls, and as formerly non-contending jobs become relevant, there will be, all things equal (as we say) a fall in student enrollment as the demand curve shifts left. Second, universities will try to segment the market for all education as they have done with their executive MBA programs and as the U.S. has done with its "ivy league" big budget schools. Since students can less and less move to schools, tied by finances and jobs to local schools, market discrimination will creep in. One Ontario public university has offered to admit regular teacher training students at about $3,000 tuition, then admit 50 more at $10,000 tuition. It argues that these other students end up crossing the US border and spending $10-15,000 to obtain the same degree in the US so why not capture the expenditure here (import substitution!). The provincial government has said NO but the firt shot has been fired and it is already done here in MBA programs. Of course, as a discriminating monopolist the campus will augment its revenue, at the expense of any pretense of equity. The second thing that will happen, and it will happen much faster than any of us realize, is the growth of undergraduate distance education. Using computer mediated techniques (network access, computer assisted techniques, etc.) there are several very powerful factors at work. The most important is that various institutions will no longer have a monopoly over their local student catchment area. The Ontario university wishing to charge $10,000 for a year of teacher training is 25 miles or so from the US border and students in its catchment basin can commute daily to a US university. Once courses are offered "on-line" and fill the requirements for credentials, competition will be rampent. A group of Canadian's are planning a "virtual political economy" course later this year. By itself it is a novelty but as part of a standard degree such courses represent the WalMart/Costco edge of higher education. The other two important aspects of such courses are (a) minimal marginal cost and (b) the flexibility build in for the student who faces time constraints. An online course of 50 can become an on-line couse for 250 with no scheduling problems for students and no demand for classroom space for the university. The fixed costs fall and the marginal costs remain low. In a competititve environment tuition fees can go into almost free fall. In a competitive environment we can see the emergence of "educational service providers" who package the distance education courses and
Canadian College Tuition
Beyond the fact that tuitions have risen over the past decade or two, there is another more fundamental shift underway and that is the public policy shift, and to use Chomsky's phrase" the "selling of the privatization of higher education". Here privatization means both growth of the private sector and the "full-fee-for-service" approach to state owned institutions. (No longer state _supported_. Universities are the most "fordest" of modern production units. As the auto industry has consolidated global power and outsourced at the same time, the typical university has acted like a 1950's auto manufacturer. It has deepened its administrative structure and built more physical factory. With a shift in the ability of the state to pay (budget/debt crunch and mini-Structural Adjust ment Programs, from whatever sources) a change in attitude has made it less fashionable to fund higher education. Arguments about externalities and about social justice and mobility through education carry less weight. Where does that leave us and where are we likely to go? It leaves us, in the short run, with higher tuition fees. The quantitative effects of this have been masked by two other factors, the rise in the demand for "skills" at the job entry level, and the lack of jobs which has driven the reserve army of the unemployed (redundant army of the unemployed) to school as something to do and something which increases their odds of work, and the reduced role of education in social mobility (only those who can pay will go). In the somewhat longer run enrollment will fall off as a combination of ability to pay and the lower probability of finding a relevant job both raise the cost and reduce the expected value of the education. It is noted that the lack of jobs has also reduced the opportunity cost component of attending school at the present time and as the expected value of education falls, less attractive jobs will become relevant as "opportunity cost" jobs. (Here I know of people recently laid off as police in Northern California who -last night- started as security guards in Las Vegas at $6/hr. They have applied for a job with the Las Vegas police department where the department quit receiving applications after 1200 people had applied for 73 job openings. The last large hotel to open in Las Vegas had 100,000 applications for 8,000 jobs!) In the long run two things will happen. First, as the expected value of the education falls, and as formerly non-contending jobs become relevant, there will be, all things equal (as we say) a fall in student enrollment as the demand curve shifts left. Second, universities will try to segment the market for all education as they have done with their executive MBA programs and as the U.S. has done with its "ivy league" big budget schools. Since students can less and less move to schools, tied by finances and jobs to local schools, market discrimination will creep in. One Ontario public university has offered to admit regular teacher training students at about $3,000 tuition, then admit 50 more at $10,000 tuition. It argues that these other students end up crossing the US border and spending $10-15,000 to obtain the same degree in the US so why not capture the expenditure here (import substitution!). The provincial government has said NO but the firt shot has been fired and it is already done here in MBA programs. Of course, as a discriminating monopolist the campus will augment its revenue, at the expense of any pretense of equity. The second thing that will happen, and it will happen much faster than any of us realize, is the growth of undergraduate distance education. Using computer mediated techniques (network access, computer assisted techniques, etc.) there are several very powerful factors at work. The most important is that various institutions will no longer have a monopoly over their local student catchment area. The Ontario university wishing to charge $10,000 for a year of teacher training is 25 miles or so from the US border and students in its catchment basin can commute daily to a US university. Once courses are offered "on-line" and fill the requirements for credentials, competition will be rampent. A group of Canadian's are planning a "virtual political economy" course later this year. By itself it is a novelty but as part of a standard degree such courses represent the WalMart/Costco edge of higher education. The other two important aspects of such courses are (a) minimal marginal cost and (b) the flexibility build in for the student who faces time constraints. An online course of 50 can become an on-line couse for 250 with no scheduling problems for students and no demand for classroom space for the university. The fixed costs fall and the marginal costs remain low. In a competititve environment tuition fees can go into almost free fall. In a competitive environment we can see the emergence of "educational service providers" who package the distance education courses and
Joblessness Distributed
The Canadian government has struck a commission to look into the prospects of a 4 day work week. The comission will be headed by Arthur Donner, an economist here in Toronto who is a consultant and teaches part time in my department. It already knows that a workshare approach is frought with lots of problems and policy issues w/r to the fixed component of job costs to the employer, and that may people work 5+ days a week just to survive so how are they going to survive on 4 days and 80% or less of previous income. Never the less, the commission should produce some interesting food for thought. At the moment the government (Statistics Canada) says that industry is operation at about "full capacity" (85% of utilization) but, alas, unemployment is stuck at around 11%. Maybe we will add the "full capacity level of unemployment" to the "full employment level of unemployment". Policy could argue about which is the correct target. That is easier than arguing about levels and it would not be over the heads of the current crop of policy makers. Sam Lanfranco, York U. CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joblessness Distributed
The Canadian government has struck a commission to look into the prospects of a 4 day work week. The comission will be headed by Arthur Donner, an economist here in Toronto who is a consultant and teaches part time in my department. It already knows that a workshare approach is frought with lots of problems and policy issues w/r to the fixed component of job costs to the employer, and that may people work 5+ days a week just to survive so how are they going to survive on 4 days and 80% or less of previous income. Never the less, the commission should produce some interesting food for thought. At the moment the government (Statistics Canada) says that industry is operation at about "full capacity" (85% of utilization) but, alas, unemployment is stuck at around 11%. Maybe we will add the "full capacity level of unemployment" to the "full employment level of unemployment". Policy could argue about which is the correct target. That is easier than arguing about levels and it would not be over the heads of the current crop of policy makers. Sam Lanfranco, York U. CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
